Can a lawyer break client confidentiality to stop a client who threatens suicide or harm to others?

Plain-English summary

Lawyer A represented a client in a domestic matter. After a temporary hearing, the client wrote Lawyer A a letter stating that on a specific date the client would end his life over his disagreement with the court's decision, and wrote the opposing spouse's lawyer a similar letter saying it would "all be over" by that date. Lawyer A believed the threat was credible and asked what could be done to protect the other lawyer and the spouse and to keep the client from harming himself.

The committee concluded that Lawyer A would not violate the duty of confidentiality under Rule 1.6 by taking action necessary to prevent the client's suicide or harm to others. A lawyer ordinarily may not reveal information relating to a representation, but Rule 1.6(b)(1) permits revealing, to the extent the lawyer reasonably believes necessary, information needed to prevent the client from committing a criminal act. The committee noted that suicide was a crime in South Carolina (citing State v. Lavelle) and that bodily harm to others, as intimated in the client's letter, is a crime, so the exception applied.

The committee also pointed to Rule 1.14, which permits a lawyer to seek appropriate protective action, up to seeking appointment of a guardian or conservator, when the lawyer reasonably believes a client whose capacity is diminished cannot adequately act in the client's own interest. Drawing on the "overriding social concern" for the preservation of human life and on ABA Informal Opinion 83-1500 (where disclosure was endorsed as a last resort after counseling efforts failed), the committee stated that a lawyer may, and even should, take reasonable steps to preserve the life and well-being of the client and others. The committee suggested Lawyer A could first meet with the client to encourage him to rethink his actions and seek counseling, and, if the client were non-responsive, could arrange a conference with the Family Court administrative judge and opposing counsel or take other suitable action to prevent harm.

Currency note

This opinion was issued in 1999, before the South Carolina Bar's adoption of the 2005 revisions to the Rules of Professional Conduct. 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 Treat this page as historical context, not current guidance.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: Can a lawyer break confidentiality when a client threatens suicide?

A: The committee concluded yes: because suicide was a crime in South Carolina, Rule 1.6(b)(1) permitted the lawyer to reveal, to the extent reasonably believed necessary, information to prevent the client from committing that criminal act.

Q: Does the duty of confidentiality cover a threat to harm someone else?

A: The committee treated bodily harm to others, intimated in the client's letter to the spouse's lawyer, as a crime as well, so the same Rule 1.6(b)(1) exception allowed disclosure to prevent it.

Q: What role did Rule 1.14 play in the analysis?

A: The committee cited Rule 1.14, which permits protective action (including seeking a guardian or conservator) when the lawyer reasonably believes a client whose capacity is diminished cannot adequately act in the client's own interest.

Background and rules framework

The opinion interpreted South Carolina RPC 1.6 (confidentiality, including the 1.6(b)(1) exception permitting disclosure to prevent a client's criminal act) and RPC 1.14 (client under a disability / diminished capacity), corresponding to the like-numbered Model Rules. The committee relied on the criminal status of suicide in South Carolina (State v. Lavelle) and on ABA Informal Opinion 83-1500.

Citations and references

Rules of Professional Conduct:

• South Carolina RPC 1.6(a), 1.6(b)(1) / Model Rule 1.6: confidentiality; exception permitting disclosure to prevent a client's criminal act.
• South Carolina RPC 1.14(b) / Model Rule 1.14: client with diminished capacity; protective action.

Cases:

• State v. Lavelle, 34 S.C. 120, 13 S.E. 319 (S.C. 1891), cited for suicide being a crime in South Carolina.

Other opinions cited:

• ABA Informal Opinion 83-1500: disclosure of a client's suicidal intent endorsed as a last resort after counseling fails.
• S.C. Bar Ethics Advisory Opinions 83-11, 90-30: confidentiality and the criminal-act exception.

See also

• SC Bar Ethics Op. 99-11: Out-of-State Loan Terms and Limited-Scope Engagement
• No further sibling opinions yet indexed.

Source

• Landing page: https://www.scbar.org/for-lawyers/quicklinks/legal-resources/ethics-advisory-opinions/ethics-advisory-opinion-99-12/

Original opinion text

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

UPON THE REQUEST OF A MEMBER OF THE SOUTH CAROLINA BAR, THE ETHICS ADVISORY COMMITTEE HAS RENDERED THIS OPINION ON THE ETHICAL PROPRIETY OF THE INQUIRER’S CONTEMPLATED CONDUCT. THIS COMMITTEE HAS NO DISCIPLINARY AUTHORITY. LAWYER DISCIPLINE IS ADMINISTERED SOLELY BY THE SOUTH CAROLINA SUPREME COURT THROUGH ITS COMMISSION ON LAWYER CONDUCT.

Ethics Advisory Opinion 99-12

Facts
Lawyer A represents Client in a domestic matter. Following a temporary hearing, Lawyer A received a letter from Client stating that on a specific date Client will end his life based on his disagreement with the court’s decision. Client also wrote Spouse’s lawyer a similar letter. In that letter, Client did not directly threaten to take his own life, only that it would “all be over” by that date. Lawyer A believes the threat to be credible.

Questions
Recognizing a potential danger to the other lawyer and Spouse, what may Lawyer A ethically do to protect them?
What may Lawyer A ethically do to keep Client from harming himself?

Summary
Lawyer A would not violate his duty of confidentiality under Rule 1.6 by taking such action as is necessary to prevent his client from committing suicide and/or preventing harm to others.[1]

Opinion
A lawyer is not allowed to reveal information relating to the representation of the client unless the client consents or the disclosure is required to carry out the representation of the client. Rule 1.6(a); S.C. Bar Ethics Advisory Opinion 90-30. However, a lawyer may reveal, to the extent the lawyer reasonably believes is necessary, any information to prevent the client from commit­ting a criminal act. Rule 1.6(b)(1); S.C. Bar Ethics Advisory Opinions 83-11 and 90-30. Under this exception, Lawyer A may reveal the information necessary to prevent a crime.

Suicide is a crime in South Carolina. State v. Lavelle, 34 S.C. 120, 13 S.E. 319 (1891); William S. McAninch, The Criminal Law in South Carolina, 3d Edition (1996), p.65. And, certainly bodily harm to others, as intimated by the client in his letter to Spouse’s Lawyer, is a crime.

On occasion, during the course of a representation, a client’s mental health deteriorates to a point where the client does not act in his own interests. Rule 1.14 permits a lawyer to seek appropriate protection for the client, even though it may involve the disclosure of information regarding a client’s disability. This may even include seeking the appointment of a guardian or conservator, or other appropriate protective action. Such a drastic course of action can be taken only when the lawyer “reasonably believes the client cannot adequately act in the client’s own interest.” Rule 1.14(b).

Even if the modern era has diminished the understanding of suicide as a crime, we are persuaded that the “overriding social concern” for the preservation of human life dictates that a lawyer may, and even should, take reasonable steps to preserve the life and well-being of his client and others.

ABA Informal Opinion 83-1500 gives good guidance. That opinion involves a situation where a client who retained a lawyer to draft a will confided to her lawyer a desire to take her own life. In the subject jurisdiction, unlike South Carolina, suicide and attempted suicide was not a crime. Yet, the opinion recognized the “overriding social concern for the preservation of human life” and the opinion strongly recommended that the lawyer should disclose the information “as a last resort when the lawyer’s efforts to counsel the client have apparently failed.” The ABA Informal Opinion cited opinions from both the Massachusetts and New York bars to support this reason­ing.

As stated in the Comment to Rule 1.6, a lawyer has “professional discretion to reveal information in order to prevent such consequences” [criminal action]. The Comment further says:

“The lawyer’s exercise of discretion requires consideration of such factors as the nature of the lawyer’s relationship with the client and with those who might be injured by the client, the lawyer’s own involvement in the transaction and factors that may extenuate the conduct in questions. Where practical, the lawyer should seek to persuade the client to take suitable action. . . .”

Lawyer A may consider first meeting with his client to encourage him to rethink his actions and to seek counseling from his minister, priest, rabbi and/or other suitable professional. If the client is non-responsive, or if the lawyer feels the client may carry out his threats to harm himself and/or others, the lawyer could immediately arrange a conference with the Family Court Administrative Judge and opposing counsel, or take other suitable action to prevent harm to the client and others.

[1] Because of the urgency and gravity of the inquiry, the Bar Ethics Advisory Committee adopted this summary at its meeting on July 23, 1999, and asked the South Carolina Bar to report the summary to the inquiring Lawyer straightaway. It was understood that a formal opinion would follow.