Could a lawyer agree to take stolen jewels as a fee so a felon would reveal their location, planning instead to tip off authorities and return them?

Plain-English summary

The Board was asked whether a lawyer could properly agree to accept from a felon part of some stolen jewels in payment of his fee if the felon would disclose their hiding place, where the lawyer's actual purpose was not to accept the jewels but to notify the sheriff or county attorney of the facts and so secure the jewels for restoration to the rightful owner.

The Board answered that a lawyer is not justified, under any circumstances, in planning to double-cross a person he engages to serve in the capacity of lawyer. It reasoned that the larger public good served by preserving intact the confidence between client and attorney is paramount to the particular good accomplished by means that do violence to that confidence.

Currency note

This opinion was issued in 1936, decades before Oklahoma replaced its original Rules of Professional Conduct (patterned on the ABA Canons of Professional Ethics) with the Oklahoma Rules of Professional Conduct (adopted 1988) and the later Ethics 2000 revisions. The principle it states, the primacy of client confidence, persists in the modern confidentiality rules, though those rules also set out specific exceptions. Subsequent rule amendments or later opinions may have changed the analysis. Treat this page as historical context, not current guidance. Verify against current rules before relying on any specific rule, deadline, or requirement mentioned here.

Common questions

Q: Could a lawyer trick a client into revealing stolen property in order to return it?

A: No. The opinion held a lawyer is never justified in planning to double-cross someone he agrees to serve as a lawyer, even to recover stolen goods.

Q: Did the good purpose of returning the jewels to their owner change the answer?

A: No. The Board reasoned that preserving client confidence is paramount to the particular good achieved by means that violate that confidence.

Background and rules framework

The opinion rests on the duty to preserve a client's confidence (Rule 39 of the canon-era Oklahoma Rules of Professional Conduct) and the loyalty a lawyer owes a person he agrees to serve. It predates the Model Rules and made no Model Rule citation.

Citations and references

Rules of Professional Conduct:

• Rule 39 (1929 Oklahoma Rules of Professional Conduct): the duty to preserve a client's confidence, treated by the Board as paramount.

See also

• Okla. Bar Ethics Op. 109: Disclosing the whereabouts of a fugitive client
• Okla. Bar Ethics Op. 93: Defending a co-defendant against a former client

Source

• Landing page: https://www.okbar.org/ethics/ethics-opinion-no-110/

Original opinion text

Reproduced from the official source for research purposes. The linked source is authoritative.

Adopted June 19, 1936

The Board of Governors has been requested to indicate its views upon whether or not a member of the bar, could with propriety, agree to accept from a felon a part of stolen jewels in payment of his fee if the felon would disclose the hiding place thereof, the purpose of the member of the bar being, not to accept the jewels, but to notify the sheriff or county attorney of the facts, and in this manner secure the jewels for restoration to the rightful owner.

In response:

The Board of Governors is of the opinion that a member of the bar is not justified, under any circumstances, in planning to doublecross a person he engages to serve in the capacity of lawyer.

The larger public good to be served by preserving intact confidence between client and attorney is paramount to the effectuation of a particular good wrought by means that do violence to that confidence.