May a Vermont lawyer disclose the identity of a client who retained the lawyer to return allegedly stolen money anonymously?

Plain-English summary

The committee assumed the inquiring lawyer's account of disputed facts: someone retained him to return money allegedly taken from a town office, and he delivered the money without identifying the client. The committee emphasized it was not resolving the factual dispute or deciding the legal existence of an attorney-client relationship independently.

Under former DR 4-101, the client's name was a protected secret because disclosure would be detrimental, even if client identity was not ordinarily privileged evidence. Information the client gave about taking the money was also protected. The committee said possible past criminal conduct did not trigger the Code's exception concerning a client's intended future crime.

The opinion also noted an evidentiary privilege exception for representations arranged to surrender property anonymously, while grounding its ethical holding in the Code's separate protection for client secrets.

Currency note

This opinion was issued in 1983 under Vermont's former Code of Professional Responsibility. The Vermont Supreme Court's rules history states that the Rules of Professional Conduct applied to lawyer conduct after September 1, 1999. Later amendments or opinions may have changed the analysis. Treat this opinion as historical context and verify current rules before relying on it.

Common questions

Q: Could the lawyer reveal the client's name?

A: No. The committee treated the name as a protected secret because its disclosure would harm the client on the assumed facts.

Q: Did the alleged past taking authorize disclosure?

A: No. The committee distinguished information about past conduct from the Code exception for a client's intention to commit a future crime.

Background and rules framework

The opinion distinguished evidentiary attorney-client privilege from former DR 4-101's ethical coverage of confidences and secrets. It cited Vermont Rule of Evidence 502 and an ABA opinion on protecting a client's identity.

Citations and references

Rules of Professional Conduct:

• Vermont Code of Professional Responsibility DR 4-101 and DR 4-101(C)(3)
• Vermont Rule of Evidence 502

Cases:

• Baird v. Koerner, 279 F.2d 623 (9th Cir. 1960), cited for an identity-privilege exception

Other opinions cited:

• ABA Informal Opinion 1286 (1974)

See also

• Vermont Ethics Op. 81-01: Client fraud information
• Vermont Ethics Op. 86-03: Potential-victim warning

Source

• Landing page: Vermont Bar Association confidentiality disclosure opinions
• Original PDF: Opinion 83-01
• Vermont Supreme Court rules history, “These rules apply to lawyer conduct after September 1, 1999.”