If a client confides that an item he gave the lawyer as a fee was stolen in a past burglary, must the lawyer give the client's name to police?

Plain-English summary

The Committee addressed a scenario in which an attorney accepted a television set as part payment of a fee. Days after delivery, the client told the attorney in confidence that he had been involved in a burglary in which the set was stolen. The attorney then informed the police of the conference and asked them to pick up the set; the police asked the attorney to give them the client's name. The question was whether the attorney should reveal the client's name to the police.

The Committee concluded that he should not. It explained that Canon 34 imposes a duty not to disclose confidential information obtained in confidence from a client, a duty that outlasts the employment. That duty extends to a crime the client has already committed, but does not extend to a crime or fraud the client announces he intends to commit in the future. The Committee acknowledged there are many exceptions to the rule barring disclosure of a past crime, citing Drinker, Legal Ethics 131-39 (1953), but found the facts of the inquiry did not fall within any exception. It therefore concluded the attorney is prohibited under Canon 34 from disclosing to the police the client's name or any information about the crime that the client related to him in confidence, citing prior Opinions 204 and 193.

Currency note

This opinion was issued in 1970, under the former Texas Canons of Ethics, which the Texas Disciplinary Rules of Professional Conduct replaced effective January 1, 1990. Confidentiality of client information is now governed by Texas Rule 1.05 and ABA Model Rule 1.6, which set out their own specific exceptions, including for preventing certain future criminal or fraudulent acts. 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 Treat this page as historical context, not current guidance.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: Must a lawyer name a client who confided a past crime when police ask?

A: No, on these facts. The Committee concluded the attorney is prohibited under Canon 34 from disclosing the client's name or any information about the past crime confided to him.

Q: Does the duty cover crimes the client only intends to commit later?

A: No. The Committee said the duty extends to a crime already committed but not to a crime or fraud the client announces he intends to commit in the future.

Q: Do exceptions to the confidentiality duty exist?

A: The Committee acknowledged there are many exceptions to the rule against disclosing a past crime, citing Drinker, Legal Ethics, but found the facts of this inquiry did not fall within any of them.

Background and rules framework

The opinion interprets former Texas Canon 34, the duty to preserve a client's confidences, including the distinction between past crimes (covered) and intended future crimes or frauds (not covered). The modern analog is Texas Rule 1.05 and ABA Model Rule 1.6 (confidentiality of information).

Citations and references

Rules of Professional Conduct:

• MR 1.6 (confidentiality of information), as the modern analog
• Texas Canon 34 (former Texas Canons of Ethics)

Other opinions cited:

• Texas Ethics Opinions 204, 193

Other references:

• Drinker, Legal Ethics 131-39 (1953) (exceptions to the rule against disclosing a client's past crime)

See also

• TX Ethics Op. 378: Former Client's Confidences When Subpoenaed by the SEC
• TX Ethics Op. 384: Attorney's Disclosure to the IRS About a Former Client
• TX Ethics Op. 389: Disclosing a Former Joint Client's Confidences and Perjury

Source

• Landing page: https://www.legalethicstexas.com/resources/opinions/opinion-353/
• Original PDF: https://tcle-web.s3.amazonaws.com/public/documents/Opinion_353.pdf

Original opinion text

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

QUESTION PRESENTED

An attorney accepts a television set as part payment on a fee owed by a client. Several days after the television set is delivered, the client comes back to the attorney's office for a conference. During the course of the conference, the client tells the attorney in confidence that he was involved in a burglary, at which time the television set was stolen. Thereafter the attorney informs the police department of his conference with the client and asks the police department to pick up the television set. The police officers ask the attorney to give them the name of the client. Should the attorney reveal the name of his client to the police officers?

23 Baylor L. Rev. 895 (1972)

Canon 34

Canon 34 provides that the attorney has a duty not to disclose confidential information obtained in confidence from his client. This duty to preserve the client's confidence outlasts the employment. This duty extends to a crime which has been committed, but does not extend to a crime or fraud which the client announces that he intends to commit in the future. See Opinion 204. There are many exceptions to the rule which prohibits disclosure of a crime which a client has committed in the past. See Drinker, Legal Ethics, 131-39 (1953). However, the facts of this inquiry do not bring it within one of the exceptions. Thus, the attorney is prohibited under Texas Canon 34 from disclosing to the police officers the name of his client or any information pertaining to the commission of the crime which was related to him in confidence by his client. See Opinion 193.

When an attorney is made aware in confidence that a client has in the past committed a crime, the attorney is prohibited from disclosing any of the information revealed to him by his client.

Tex. Comm. On Professional Ethics, Op. 353 (1970)