Another lawyer at my firm admitted directly to me that he took client money. Do I have to report him under Rule 8.3, or is his admission confidential?

Plain-English summary

The inquiring attorney was a former co-owner of a professional law corporation who had sold his or her stock to the second owner, Attorney X, and stayed on with the firm in an of-counsel capacity. A former client contacted the inquiring attorney's home and told the attorney's son that Attorney X owed her a large sum from an estate sale Attorney X had conducted. Suspecting misconduct, the inquiring attorney advised the client to contact Rhode Island Disciplinary Counsel; after Attorney X learned of this, Attorney X returned the client's money. When the inquiring attorney asked Attorney X whether he had taken the client's money, Attorney X replied, "No, not hers; others." Based on that admission, the inquiring attorney asked whether he or she was obligated to report Attorney X under Rule 8.3.

The panel applied Rule 8.3, under which a lawyer who knows another lawyer has committed a violation raising a substantial question about honesty, trustworthiness, or fitness must inform the appropriate professional authority. Rule 8.3(c) exempts information protected by Rule 1.6. The panel reasoned that Attorney X had confessed the act of commingling funds directly to the inquiring attorney, so the admission was not protected under Rule 1.6.

The panel opined that the inquiring attorney was obliged to report Attorney X's actions to the Disciplinary Counsel's Office, because such conduct raises a substantial question as to Attorney X's honesty, trustworthiness, or fitness as a lawyer.

Currency note

This opinion was issued in 1995, after the Rhode Island Supreme Court adopted the Model Rules of Professional Conduct effective November 15, 1988, and it applies Rules 8.3 and 1.6 as originally adopted. The Rhode Island Supreme Court later revised the Rules of Professional Conduct in 2007 as part of the nationwide Ethics 2000 process, which broadened the Rule 1.6 confidentiality provisions. 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 Treat this page as historical context, not current guidance.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 mentioned here.

Common questions

Q: Did the lawyer have to report Attorney X?

A: Yes. The opinion concluded the inquiring attorney was obliged to report Attorney X to Disciplinary Counsel because taking client funds raises a substantial question as to honesty, trustworthiness, or fitness.

Q: Was Attorney X's admission confidential under Rule 1.6?

A: No. The opinion reasoned that because Attorney X confessed the commingling directly to the inquiring attorney, the admission was not information protected by Rule 1.6, so the Rule 8.3(c) exception did not apply.

Q: Did it matter that Attorney X returned the money?

A: The opinion did not treat the return of the money as relieving the reporting duty; it grounded the obligation in the substantial question Attorney X's conduct raised about his fitness.

Background and rules framework

The opinion applied Rhode Island Rules of Professional Conduct 8.3 (Model Rule 8.3) and 1.6 (Model Rule 1.6). Rule 8.3(a) requires reporting a lawyer's violation that raises a substantial question of honesty, trustworthiness, or fitness, and Rule 8.3(c) preserves information protected by Rule 1.6 from that duty. The panel treated the direct admission by Attorney X as outside Rule 1.6's protection, which left the mandatory reporting duty intact.

Citations and references

Rules of Professional Conduct:

• Model Rule 8.3 / RI RPC 8.3(a), 8.3(c) (reporting professional misconduct; exception for Rule 1.6 information)
• Model Rule 1.6 / RI RPC 1.6 (confidentiality of information)

See also

• RI EAP Op. 95-09: Reporting a paralegal holding out as a lawyer
• RI EAP Op. 97-22: Duty to report trust-account misuse
• RI EAP Op. 90-05: A CPA-attorney's duty on learning of a lawyer's fraud on heirs

Source

• Landing page: https://www.courts.ri.gov/attorney-resources/Pages/Ethics-Advisory-Panel-default.aspx
• Original PDF: https://www.courts.ri.gov/Opinions/EAP%2095-10.pdf

Original opinion text

Best-effort transcription from a scanned PDF. Minor errors may remain; the linked PDF is authoritative.

FINAL

ETHICS ADVISORY PANEL
OPINION # 95-10, REQUEST # 568
Issued March 6, 1995

The inquiring attorney is a former co-owner of a professional corporation engaged in the practice of law. The inquiring attorney sold his/her stock in the corporation to the second owner, Attorney X and continued to be employed by the firm in an of counsel capacity.

Recently, a former client contacted the inquiring attorney's home and indicated to the inquiring attorney's son that Attorney X owed her a large sum of money from an estate sale conducted by Attorney X. The inquiring attorney became suspicious of misconduct on Attorney X's behalf and advised the client to contact the Rhode Island Disciplinary Counsel. Attorney X was informed of this and returned the client's money.

The inquiring attorney contacted Attorney X and asked if he/she took the client's money to which Attorney X replied, "No, not hers; others." Based on this admission, the inquiring attorney asks if he/she is obligated to report Attorney X's conduct under Rule 8.3.

Rule 8.3 entitled "Reporting Professional Misconduct" states in pertinent part:

(a) A lawyer having knowledge that another lawyer has committed a violation of the Rules of Professional Conduct that raises a substantial question as to that lawyer's honesty, trustworthiness or fitness as a lawyer in other respects, shall inform the appropriate professional authority... ;

(c) This rule does not require disclosure of information otherwise protected by Rule 1.6.

According to Rule 8.3 a lawyer has a duty to report another lawyer's misconduct unless confidential information would be disclosed. Attorney X did confess the act of co-mingling funds directly to the inquiring attorney therefore the admission is not protected under Rule 1.6. The Panel opines that the inquiring attorney is obliged to report Attorney X's actions to the Disciplinary Counsel's Office because such conduct raises a substantial question as to Attorney X's honesty, trustworthiness or fitness as a lawyer.