Must a lawyer report another lawyer's ethics violation, and can the lawyer report it when the information came from representing a client who objects?

Plain-English summary

While representing a client, Lawyer A learns that Lawyer B (who formerly represented the client) and Lawyer C (who never did) have violated the Oregon RPCs. The client tells Lawyer A not to report the violations because doing so could embarrass or otherwise harm the client. The opinion asks whether Lawyer A may report, and, separately, when a lawyer must report another lawyer's violation if no client-representation information is involved.

On the first question the answer is no. Oregon RPC 8.3(a) requires a lawyer who knows of a qualifying violation to inform the Oregon State Bar Client Assistance Office, but RPC 8.3(c) provides that the rule does not require disclosure of information protected by RPC 1.6 or ORS 9.460(3). Because the lawyer's knowledge here is protected client information and no exception permitting disclosure is available, the lawyer may not report. The opinion adds that if the client directs the lawyer to report the violation, the lawyer must do so.

On the threshold for reporting generally, the opinion explains that even with client authorization, a lawyer must report only a violation the lawyer knows (actual knowledge under RPC 1.0(h)), not merely suspects, and only where the violation raises a substantial question as to the other lawyer's honesty, trustworthiness, or fitness. Quoting the comment to ABA Model Rule 8.3, the opinion notes the rule limits the obligation to serious offenses, that "substantial" refers to the seriousness of the offense rather than the quantum of evidence, and that merely technical conflict violations would not qualify while conduct such as destroying subpoenaed evidence, suborning perjury, or self-dealing with trust funds would.

In practice

The opinion holds that, under the Oregon rules, the confidentiality carve-out in RPC 8.3(c) controls when the lawyer's knowledge comes from a client representation: absent a 1.6 exception or the client's direction to report, the lawyer may not disclose. Where reporting is otherwise available, the duty turns on actual knowledge of a violation that raises a substantial question as to honesty, trustworthiness, or fitness. The analysis turns on whether the knowledge is protected client information and, if not, on the seriousness of the offense. Verify the current text of Oregon RPC 8.3, 1.6, and 1.0(h) and ORS 9.460(3) before relying on any specific point.

Common questions

Q: My client doesn't want me to report another lawyer's misconduct I learned about while representing them. Can I report anyway?

A: The opinion concludes no, where the knowledge is protected by RPC 1.6 or ORS 9.460(3) and no disclosure exception applies. RPC 8.3(c) does not require disclosure of protected client information.

Q: What if my client tells me to report it?

A: Then you must. The opinion concludes that if the client directs the lawyer to report a rule violation to the bar, the lawyer must do so.

Q: When does the duty to report another lawyer actually kick in?

A: The opinion concludes the duty arises only on actual knowledge (not suspicion) of a violation that raises a substantial question as to the other lawyer's honesty, trustworthiness, or fitness; "substantial" refers to the seriousness of the offense, not the amount of evidence.

Background and rules framework

The opinion interprets Oregon RPC 8.3(a) and (c) (reporting professional misconduct; confidentiality exception), corresponding to Model Rule 8.3; Oregon RPC 1.6 (confidentiality of information), corresponding to Model Rule 1.6; and Oregon RPC 1.0(h) (definition of "knows"), corresponding to Model Rule 1.0, against ORS 9.460(3) (statutory duty to maintain client confidences).

Citations and references

Rules of Professional Conduct:

• Oregon RPC 8.3(a), 8.3(c) / Model Rule 8.3 (reporting misconduct; confidentiality exception)
• Oregon RPC 1.6 / Model Rule 1.6 (confidentiality of information)
• Oregon RPC 1.0(h) / Model Rule 1.0 (definition of "knows")

Statutes:

• ORS 9.460(3) (duty to maintain client confidences and secrets)

Cases:

• State v. Keenan, 307 Or 515, 771 P2d 244 (1989)

Other opinions cited:

• OSB Formal Ethics Op. No. 2005-81 (rev 2026) (confidentiality and represented persons)
• OSB Formal Ethics Op. No. 2005-26 (acting on client direction)

See also

• ABA Formal Op. 04-433: Reporting Misconduct of a Non-Practicing Lawyer
• ABA Formal Op. 03-431: Reporting an Impaired Lawyer Outside the Firm

Source

• Landing page: https://www.osbar.org/ethics/toc.html
• Original PDF: https://www.osbar.org/_docs/ethics/2005-95.pdf