NYC-BAR March 12, 2018

Can a New York lawyer take protective action and disclose confidential information for a prospective client who has seriously diminished capacity?

Short answer: Yes. The opinion concludes a lawyer may take reasonably necessary protective action when a prospective client has seriously diminished capacity, cannot act in their own interest, and risks substantial harm, and is impliedly authorized under Rule 1.6(a) to reveal information to the extent reasonably necessary, while clarifying that no lawyer-client relationship exists.

Apply this to your situation

This page answers the general question as of 2018. Ezel answers yours: whether it's allowed on your facts, under the current New York Rules of Professional Conduct, with citations.

Currency note: this opinion is from 2018
Subsequent statutory amendments, court decisions, or later opinions or rule amendments may have changed the analysis. Treat this page as historical context, not current legal advice. Verify current law before relying on any specific rule, deadline, or remedy mentioned here.
Disclaimer: Advisory only. Not binding precedent.
About this page: The plain-English summary, reader guidance, and Q&A below were written by Ezel based on the official ethics opinion. The original opinion (linked on this page) is the authoritative source for any reliance.

Plain-English summary

The opinion addresses a person who consults a lawyer about possible representation, qualifies as a prospective client under Rule 1.18, but has seriously diminished capacity. It concludes that the lawyer may take reasonably necessary protective action where the prospective client cannot adequately act in their own interest and is at risk of substantial physical, financial, or other harm unless action is taken, drawing on the framework of Rule 1.14 (clients with diminished capacity).

The opinion concludes that when taking such protective action, the lawyer is impliedly authorized under Rule 1.6(a) to reveal information about the prospective client to the extent reasonably necessary to protect the prospective client's interests, even though the protective-action provisions are framed around clients.

The opinion concludes that, because no lawyer-client relationship has formed with the prospective client, the lawyer must clarify in interactions with a court or others that the lawyer is not the prospective client's representative and that no client-lawyer relationship exists. It frames that obligation against Rules 3.3, 4.1, and 8.4 governing truthfulness and candor.

In practice

Under this opinion, as the New York rules stood at the time, a lawyer who has only a prospective-client relationship may still act to protect a person in danger. The opinion holds that the Rule 1.14 protective-action framework and the Rule 1.6(a) implied authority to disclose can extend to a prospective client with seriously diminished capacity who faces a risk of substantial harm, limited to what is reasonably necessary. The opinion holds the lawyer must, at the same time, make clear to courts and others that no lawyer-client relationship exists.

Common questions

Q: Can a lawyer act protectively for someone who is only a prospective client?

A: Yes, where the conditions are met. The opinion concludes a lawyer may take reasonably necessary protective action for a prospective client with seriously diminished capacity who cannot adequately act in their own interest and risks substantial harm unless action is taken.

Q: May the lawyer disclose the prospective client's confidential information?

A: To the extent reasonably necessary. The opinion concludes the lawyer is impliedly authorized under Rule 1.6(a) to reveal information about the prospective client only as reasonably necessary to protect that person's interests.

Q: What must the lawyer make clear to a court?

A: That no representation exists. The opinion concludes the lawyer must clarify that the lawyer is not the prospective client's representative and that no client-lawyer relationship exists, consistent with the candor and truthfulness rules.

Background and rules framework

The opinion interprets New York Rule of Professional Conduct 1.18 (duties to prospective clients) together with Rule 1.14 (client with diminished capacity, analogous to Model Rule 1.14) and Rule 1.6(a) (confidentiality, including implied authorization to disclose). It frames the lawyer's clarifying obligations against Rules 3.3 (candor toward the tribunal), 4.1 (truthfulness to others), and 8.4 (misconduct). The Model Rule analogues are Model Rules 1.14, 1.6, and 1.18.

Citations and references

Rules of Professional Conduct:

  • NY RPC 1.14 (client with diminished capacity; protective action)
  • NY RPC 1.6(a) (confidentiality; implied authorization to disclose)
  • NY RPC 1.18 (duties to prospective clients)
  • NY RPC 3.3, 4.1, 8.4 (candor, truthfulness, misconduct)
  • MR 1.14, MR 1.6, MR 1.18 (Model Rule analogues)

See also

Source

Get today's answer for your situation

You just read a 2018 opinion on this question. Ezel checks the current New York Rules of Professional Conduct and answers your specific situation, with citations.

Opens in Ezel Pro. Every answer cites the rules it relies on.