May a nonprofit lawyer share a pro bono client's information with a nonlawyer supervisor or funders?

Plain-English summary

The inquirer works on a donor-funded project within a law school center and also represents a pro bono client through a separate clinic. A nonlawyer project supervisor and colleagues seek access to client interviews, emails and financial information for research publications and donor reporting. The client has consented to limited disclosures but requested confidentiality for much of the information.

Rules 1.8(f) and 5.4(c) prohibit the person funding or employing the lawyer from directing the lawyer's professional judgment or compromising client confidentiality. The committee says the source of the lawyer's salary does not entitle the supervisor to control the representation.

Rule 1.6 protects information gained during or relating to representation when it is privileged, could embarrass or harm the client if disclosed, or the client requested confidentiality. The duty is broader than attorney-client privilege. Here, the client has expressly requested confidentiality for much of the information, and the committee says the implied-authorization exception does not apply because the lawyer has already discussed specific disclosures with the client.

Consent to disclosure must be voluntary and informed. The committee says the lawyer's discussion should cover material risks, alternatives and possible consequences for privilege. It declines to decide whether any disclosure would waive privilege or exactly how much information this client needs for informed consent. It also notes that research use without consent may be possible if the information is disclosed in a form that cannot identify, embarrass or harm the client.

In practice

For this donor-funded representation, the opinion ties access to client information to what the client actually authorized and to Rule 1.6's confidentiality limits. Project funding and publication goals do not expand a nonlawyer supervisor's authority over the legal work.

Common questions

Q: May a nonlawyer project supervisor direct the lawyer's work for the pro bono client?

A: No. Rules 1.8(f) and 5.4(c) prevent the supervisor or another payer from interfering with the lawyer's independent judgment in the representation.

Q: Is information outside the attorney-client privilege freely shareable?

A: No. Rule 1.6 also covers information that could embarrass or harm the client, or that the client asked the lawyer to keep confidential.

Q: Did the client implicitly authorize disclosure to project staff or funders?

A: The committee says no on these facts. The lawyer has already discussed specific proposed disclosures with the client, so the implied-authorization exception does not apply here.

Q: What makes consent to disclosure informed?

A: The opinion calls for an adequate explanation of material risks and reasonable alternatives, including possible effects on privilege. It does not decide whether a particular disclosure waives privilege.

Q: May the lawyer use case information in research without consent?

A: The committee says that may be possible if the client cannot be identified and disclosure could not embarrass or harm the client. Otherwise, client consent is required.

Background and rules framework

The opinion applies New York Rules 1.8(f) and 5.4(c) to third-party funding and professional independence, and Rules 1.6(a) and 1.0(j) to confidential information and informed consent. It treats the law school center and the clinic as separate entities in the facts presented.

Citations and references

New York Rules of Professional Conduct:

• Rules 1.0(j), 1.6(a), 1.8(f), and 5.4(c)

Other opinions cited:

• N.Y. State 1282 (2025), sharing client information with nonlegal staff
• N.Y. State 1266 (2024), disclosure to a funder
• N.Y. State 490 (1978), nonprofit case reports to a board
• N.Y. State 718 (1999) and ABA Formal Op. 95-393 (1995), anonymizing case information

See also

• NY State Bar Op. 1282: Confidentiality and nonlegal staff
• NY State Bar Op. 1266: Disclosure to a funder

Source

• Landing page: NYSBA Ethics Opinion 1304