A former client is being investigated for forging my signature on a letter on my letterhead. Investigators want a statement and my testimony that I didn't write or sign it. Does Rule 1.6 stop me?

Plain-English summary

A former client of the inquiring attorney was under investigation for allegedly forging the attorney's signature. Investigators gave the attorney a copy of a letter on the attorney's letterhead, addressed to a creditor of the client, stating that a case the attorney had handled had settled and that the client would pay amounts owed. The attorney said the attorney did not write or sign the letter. Investigators sought a written statement to that effect and had advised that they would subpoena the attorney's testimony. The attorney did not represent the client in the forgery matter and asked whether the Rules prohibited giving a statement or testifying that the attorney did not write or sign the letter.

The panel concluded that the duty of confidentiality under Rule 1.6 did not prohibit the statement or testimony. Rule 1.6(a) requires keeping confidential only information that relates to the representation. The fact that the attorney did not author or sign the letter, which was the subject of a forgery investigation, was not information relating to the representation of the client, so it was not protected. The panel cautioned, however, that under Rule 1.6 the attorney may not disclose information relating to the substance of the letter or other information relating to the representation of the client.

Currency note

This opinion was issued in July 1997, after the Rhode Island Supreme Court adopted the Model Rules of Professional Conduct effective November 15, 1988, and it applies Rule 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. 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 Treat this page as historical context, not current guidance.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: Can a lawyer help investigators looking into a client's alleged forgery of the lawyer's signature?

A: The opinion concluded the lawyer may give a statement and testify that the lawyer did not write or sign the letter, because that fact is not information relating to the representation and so is not protected by Rule 1.6.

Q: Is everything a lawyer knows about a client confidential?

A: No. The opinion noted that Rule 1.6 covers information relating to the representation whatever its source, but the fact that the lawyer did not author or sign a forged letter did not relate to the representation and fell outside the rule.

Q: What can't the lawyer reveal?

A: The opinion cautioned that the lawyer may not disclose the substance of the letter or other information relating to the representation of the client.

Background and rules framework

The opinion applied Rhode Island Rule of Professional Conduct 1.6 (Model Rule 1.6). Rule 1.6(a) bars revealing information relating to the representation of a client absent consent, subject to exceptions. The panel drew on the comment distinguishing the evidentiary attorney-client privilege from the broader ethical duty of confidentiality, but keyed its conclusion to the requirement that the information "relate to the representation," which the attorney's non-authorship of the forged letter did not.

Citations and references

Rules of Professional Conduct:

• Model Rule 1.6 / RI RPC 1.6(a) (confidentiality of information)

Cases:

• In re Ethics Advisory Panel, 627 A.2d 317, 322 (R.I. 1993), Rule 1.6 protects a broad range of information relating to the representation

Other opinions cited:

• Nassau County Bar Assoc. Comm. on Prof. Ethics Op. 94-12 (1994): a lawyer whose client forged the lawyer's signature may sign forgery affidavits

See also

• RI EAP Op. 98-02: A subpoena for a former client's documents
• RI EAP Op. 97-19: Producing an appointment book in an IRS audit

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%2097-15.pdf

Original opinion text

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

Final

                        RHODE ISLAND SUPREME COURT
                           ETHICS ADVISORY PANEL
                       OPINION NO. 97-15, REQUEST NO. 720
                               Issued July 10, 1997

FACTS:

     A former client of the inquiring attorney is currently under investigation by authorities

for an alleged forgery of the attorney's signature. The investigating authorities have contacted
the inquiring attorney and have provided him/her with a copy of a letter on the inquiring attor-
ney's letterhead which was addressed to a creditor of the client. The letter advised the creditor
that a case in which the inquiring attorney represented the client had settled and that the client
would be paying the creditor amounts owed. The inquiring attorney states that he/she did not
write or sign the letter. Authorities investigating the alleged forgery seek a written statement
from the inquiring attorney to the effect that he/she was as not the author of the letter and did not
sign it. Authorities have also advised the inquiring attorney that they will issue a subpoena for
his testimony. The inquiring attorney does not represent the client in the alleged forgery matter.

ISSUE PRESENTED:

   The inquiring attorney asks whether the Rules of Professional conduct prohibit him/her

from giving a written statement or testifying in subsequent proceedings regarding the fact that
he/she did not write or sign the letter.

OPINION:

    The ethical duty of confidentiality imposed by Rule 1.6 does not prohibit the inquiring at-

torney from giving a written statement to authorities or testifying at proceedings that he/she was
neither the author nor the signer of the letter.

REASONING:

    The principle of confidentiality raised by this inquiry is given effect in two related bodies

of law, the attorney-client privilege in the law of evidence, and the duty of confidentiality estab-
lished in the Rules of Professional Conduct. See Comment to Rule 1.6. The comment explains:
The attorney-client privilege applies in judicial and other proceed-
ings in which a lawyer may be called as a witness or otherwise re-
quired to produce evidence concerning a client. The rule of client-
lawyer confidentiality applies in situations other than those where
evidence is sought from the lawyer through compulsion of law.
The confidentiality rule applies not merely to
Final 97-15
Page 2

           matters communicated in confidence by the client but also to all in-
           formation relating to the representation, whatever its source.

   Thus, Rule 1.6 protects from disclosure a broader range of information. In re Ethics Ad-

visory Panel, 627 A.2d 317, 322 (R.I. 1993).

     Nevertheless, Rule 1.6(a) requires attorneys to keep confidential only information that re-

lates to the representation. It provides:

           (a) A lawyer shall not reveal information relating to representation
           of a client unless the client consents after consultation, except for
           disclosures that are impliedly authorized in order to carry out the
           representation, and except as stated in paragraph (b).

    The information that the inquiring attorney will reveal, i.e. that he/she did not author or

sign a letter which is the subject of a forgery investigation, is not information relating to the rep-
resentation of the client. Therefore, it is not protected and does not fall within the mandate of
Rule 1.6(a). See Comm. on Professional Ethics of Nassau County Bar Assoc. Op. 94-12 (1994)
(lawyer whose client forged lawyer's signature on checks that client directed others make pay-
able to lawyer may sign forgery affidavits requested by makers of checks.) The Panel therefore
concludes that the Rules of Professional Conduct permit the inquiring attorney to give a state-
ment and testify at proceedings to confirm that he/she did not write or sign the letter. The Panel
cautions that pursuant to Rule 1.6, the inquiring attorney may not disclose information relating to
the substance of the letter or other information relating to the representation of the client.