Can a law firm sell or give its client list (names, addresses, and phone numbers) to securities brokers, financial planners, or insurance agents without the clients' consent?

Plain-English summary

Opinion 97-04 addressed a law firm that had accumulated a large number of client names, addresses, and telephone numbers through its representation. The firm believed outside professionals (securities brokers, financial planners, insurance salesmen, and others) would want to buy the list, and that its clients might benefit from being contacted. It asked whether it could provide the list for a fee, or alternatively without a fee, without obtaining the clients' prior consent.

The Committee concluded that the information was confidential and could not be disclosed without consent. It treated the situation as analytically similar to Opinion No. 97-02, which held that an accused's telephone number, provided to his attorney in a criminal matter, was privileged and could not be disclosed to law enforcement. Information a client gives an attorney during the course of representation is confidential under Rule 1.6, and the rule bars revealing it to a third party without the client's consent after consultation.

The Committee emphasized Rule 1.6's broad scope: all information relating to a client is confidential, even if it is available elsewhere, and the attorney may disclose it only if one of the exceptions in Rule 1.6(b) applies. The opinion stated the analysis does not depend on whether the firm receives compensation. Consequently, the firm was prohibited from providing a client list to third parties, with or without a fee, unless it first obtained the consent of those clients on the list.

Currency note

This opinion was issued in 1997, before the Utah State Bar's adoption of the 2005 revisions to the Rules of Professional Conduct (the Ethics 2000-based amendments approved by the Utah Supreme Court on September 29, 2005). 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 Treat this page as historical context, not current guidance.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: Is a client's name and address confidential, or only the substance of the matter?

A: It is confidential. The opinion concluded that a client's name, address, and telephone number given to the attorney during representation are confidential under Rule 1.6, whose scope covers all information relating to a client even if available elsewhere.

Q: Does it matter whether the firm charges for the list?

A: No. The opinion stated that the application of Rule 1.6 does not depend on whether the attorney receives compensation; the firm is prohibited from providing the list to third parties with or without a fee unless the clients consent.

Q: Could the firm share the list if it first got the clients' permission?

A: Yes. The opinion's prohibition applies "unless it first obtains the consent of those clients on the list," so client consent after consultation removes the bar.

Background and rules framework

The opinion interpreted Utah Rule of Professional Conduct 1.6 (confidentiality of information, Model Rule 1.6), which provided that a lawyer shall not reveal information relating to representation of a client unless the client consents after disclosure or a listed exception applies. The analysis turned on the breadth of the confidentiality duty (it covers all information relating to a client, including identifying information, even if obtainable elsewhere) and on the rule's indifference to whether the lawyer profits from the disclosure.

Citations and references

Rules of Professional Conduct:

• Model Rule 1.6 / Utah Rule 1.6 (confidentiality of information)

Other opinions cited:

• Utah Ethics Advisory Opinion No. 97-02, 1997 WL 45141 (Utah St. Bar): an accused client's telephone number is confidential and may not be disclosed

See also

• Utah Ethics Op. 97-02: Confidentiality of an Accused Client's Information
• Mich Ethics Op. RI-77: Pledging Client Names and Addresses to a Bank
• Mich Ethics Op. RI-207: Disclosing a Former Client's Address
• Utah Ethics Op. 18-02: Lawyer-to-Lawyer Consultation Confidentiality

Source

• Landing page: https://www.utahbar.org/ethics-opinions/1997-04/
• Original PDF: https://www.utahbar.org/wp-content/uploads/2022/12/1997-04.pdf

Original opinion text

Reproduced from the official source for research purposes. The two-column PDF has been reassembled into reading order by paragraph; the linked source is authoritative.

Utah Ethics Opinions 1997. 97-04. USB EAOC Opinion No. 97-04

Utah State Bar Ethics Advisory Opinion Committee

Opinion No. 97-04 Approved April 25, 1997

Issue: May a law firm furnish lists of clients' names, addresses and telephone numbers to securities brokers, financial planners, insurance salesmen and other professionals, without receiving prior permission from the clients?

Opinion: Information given to an attorney by his client, including the client's name, address and telephone number, is confidential, and the attorney is prohibited from disclosing such information under Rule 1.6 unless the client consents after consultation.

Facts: As a result of providing legal services to its clients, a law firm has acquired a large number of names, addresses and telephone numbers of clients. The firm believes that various professionals, such as securities brokers, financial planners, insurance salesmen and others, would be interested in acquiring the firm's client list. The firm also believes that its clients may benefit from receiving information from these other professionals. The firm has requested an opinion on whether it can ethically provide its client list to these other professionals for a fee without obtaining prior consent of its clients. Alternatively, the firm asks whether it can ethically furnish its client list to these professional if it does not charge a fee.

Analysis: The situation presented by this request is analytically similar to that presented in Utah Ethics Advisory Opinion No. 97-02, (fn1) where we determined that an accused's telephone number, provided to his attorney in connection with a criminal investigation, was privileged information that could not be disclosed to law enforcement officials. The Committee believes the reasoning contained in Opinion No. 97-02 applies directly to the present situation.

Information provided to an attorney by a client during the course of representation is confidential under Rule 1.6, (fn2) and the rule prohibits the lawyer from revealing such information to a third party without the client's prior consent after consulting with the client. (fn3) Here, the law firm proposes to provide information given to it by its clients during the course of the firm's representation of those clients without first obtaining its clients' consent. Rule 1.6 has a broad scope: All information relating to a client is confidential, even if the information is available elsewhere. The attorney may disclose the information without the client's consent only if one of the exceptions specified in Rule 1.6(b) applies.

The application of Rule 1.6 also does not depend on whether the attorney receives or doesn't receive compensation for providing the information. Consequently, the law firm is prohibited from providing a client list to third parties, with or without compensation, unless it first obtains the consent of those clients on the list.

Footnotes

1. 1997 WL 45141 (Utah St. Bar).

2. (a) A lawyer shall not reveal information relating to representation of a client except as stated in paragraph (b), unless the client consents after disclosure. (b) A lawyer may reveal such information to the extent the lawyer believes necessary: (1) To prevent the client from committing a criminal or fraudulent act that the lawyer believes is likely to result in death or substantial bodily harm, or substantial injury to the financial interest or property of another; (2) To rectify the consequences of a client's criminal or fraudulent act in the commission of which the lawyer's services had been used; (3) To establish a claim or defense on behalf of the lawyer in a controversy between the lawyer and the client or to establish a defense to a criminal charge or civil claim against the lawyer based upon conduct in which the client was involved; or (4) To comply with the Rules of Professional Conduct or other law. "Confidentiality of Information," Utah Rules of Professional Conduct 1.6(a), (b).

3. Utah Rule 1.6(a) uses the phrase "consents after disclosure"; its predecessor, DR 4-101(C)(1), uses the phrase "consents after full disclosure"; ABA Model Rule 1.6(a) uses the phrase "consents after consultation." We perceive no significant distinction among these variations. The client's consent must be subsequent to a meaningful communication with the attorney.

Rule Cited: 1.6