Ezel / Ethics Opinions / VTBAR

Could a Vermont lawyer tell a former minor client or probate court that the minor's parents had lost guardianship funds?

Short answer Opinion 93-07 says the information learned from the parents in a later representation remained protected, absent their consent after full disclosure or a court order.
Bar
VTBAR
Issued
1993
Source
View Original PDF

Apply this to your situation

This page answers the general question as of 1993. Ask about yours and see what the current Vermont Rules of Professional Conduct say for your facts, with citations.

Disclaimer: Advisory only. Not binding precedent.
About this page: The plain-English summary, reader guidance, and Q&A below were written by Ezel based on the official ethics opinion. The original opinion (linked on this page as a PDF) is the authoritative source for any reliance.
View original ethics opinion (PDF)

Plain-English summary

The lawyer had earlier represented a parent and minor child in a settlement that placed the child's proceeds in a guardianship account. Years later, the parents consulted the lawyer about bankruptcy and revealed that the child's funds had been pledged for a loan and exhausted after default. The child did not know of the loss.

The committee treated the parents' disclosures as their confidences and secrets under former DR 4-101. Because the loss had already happened, its crime-prevention exception did not authorize disclosure. The lawyer could contact the child only with the parents' consent after full disclosure; a probate court order could separately require disclosure. The opinion also barred the lawyer from further representation of the parents or child concerning the funds or guardianship.

Currency note

This opinion was issued in 1993 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 crime-prevention exception allow disclosure of the earlier loss?

A: No. The committee distinguished a completed taking from a client's intention to commit a crime under DR 4-101(C)(3).

Q: Could the probate court require the lawyer to reveal the information?

A: The opinion said a court order under DR 4-101(C)(2) could require disclosure, particularly if the lawyer had participated in guardianship reports.

Background and rules framework

The committee applied former DR 4-101's definitions of confidences and secrets and its exceptions for consent, legal compulsion, and crime prevention to information obtained from the parents after the earlier settlement work ended.

Citations and references

Rules of Professional Conduct:

  • Vermont Code of Professional Responsibility DR 4-101(A), (B), and (C)

See also

Source

What do the rules say today, for your facts?

This opinion is from 1993. Ezel checks the current Vermont Rules of Professional Conduct against your situation and cites the rules it relies on.

Opens in Ezel Pro.

  • Checks the law as it stands today, not only this page
  • Cites every source it relies on, so you can verify it
  • Chat, drafting and research in one workspace