May a Vermont legal-services organization warn potential victims about violent threats made during an intake interview?

Plain-English summary

During an intake interview at a legal-services office, a court-referred applicant talked about suicide and threatened to kill others. The committee assumed the applicant regarded the interview as confidential and considered what the interviewer and organization could tell potential victims.

Former DR 4-101(D) required lawyers to protect client confidences through employees and others whose services they used. But DR 4-101(C)(3) permitted disclosure of a client's intent to commit a crime and information necessary to prevent it. The committee treated that permission as discretionary, not mandatory, and concluded that the organization and interviewer could warn potential victims.

The committee declined to decide what threat-assessment steps, if any, were required, saying it could not fashion a general rule. It also expressly did not decide the legal issues in a Vermont Supreme Court case mentioned in the request.

Currency note

This opinion was issued in 1986 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: Did the committee allow a warning to potential victims?

A: Yes. It said the interviewer and legal-services organization could warn potential victims of a client or applicant's threats.

Q: Did it require a particular assessment of seriousness?

A: No. The committee declined to state what steps, if any, were required to assess the threats.

Background and rules framework

The opinion applied former DR 4-101(D) on protecting confidences through staff and DR 4-101(C)(3) on disclosure of an intended crime to prevent it. It limited its conclusion to ethics rather than legal liability.

Citations and references

Rules of Professional Conduct:

• Vermont Code of Professional Responsibility DR 4-101(C)(3) and DR 4-101(D)

Cases:

• Peck v. Counselling Service of Addison County, 146 Vt. 61 (1985), mentioned but not analyzed by the committee

See also

• Vermont Ethics Op. 81-01: Client fraud information
• Vermont Ethics Op. 82-07: Client settlement information

Source

• Landing page: Vermont Bar Association confidentiality disclosure opinions
• Original PDF: Opinion 86-03
• Vermont Supreme Court rules history, “These rules apply to lawyer conduct after September 1, 1999.”