Must a legal agency give a former lawyer the names of clients that lawyer or others handled there, so the lawyer can check for conflicts?

Plain-English summary

The inquiry concerned an agency asked by a former lawyer it had employed to disclose the names of clients represented by that lawyer, or by other lawyers in the agency, while the former lawyer was employed there. The committee reviewed the specific requests the former lawyer had submitted.

The committee was of the opinion that nothing in the Rules of Professional Conduct would require the agency to respond to those requests. By a vote of 8 to 4, however, the committee was of the opinion that if the formerly employed lawyer made an inquiry on a specific matter, a failure to disclose facts that might alert that lawyer to a potential conflict might violate RPC 8.4(d), which prohibits conduct prejudicial to the administration of justice.

Currency note

This opinion was issued in 1988, before the 2006 revisions to the Washington Rules of Professional Conduct. The rules then numbered RPC 1.6 (confidentiality) and RPC 8.4(d) (conduct prejudicial to the administration of justice) correspond to Model Rules 1.6 and 8.4(d) and were later amended. Treat this page as historical context, not current guidance. Verify against current rules before relying on any specific rule mentioned here.

Common questions

Q: Does an agency have to hand over its client names when a former lawyer asks?

A: Per the opinion, no as a general matter. The committee was of the opinion that nothing in the Rules of Professional Conduct would require the agency to respond to the former lawyer's requests for client names.

Q: Is there any situation where withholding information could be a problem?

A: Yes. By an 8-4 vote, the committee was of the opinion that if the former lawyer inquired about a specific matter, failing to disclose facts that might alert that lawyer to a potential conflict might violate RPC 8.4(d).

Q: Why would withholding conflict-related facts implicate RPC 8.4(d) rather than the confidentiality rule?

A: The committee tied the concern to RPC 8.4(d)'s bar on conduct prejudicial to the administration of justice: leaving a former colleague unaware of a potential conflict on a specific matter could prejudice the proper handling of that matter, even though the agency had no general duty to produce client names.

Background and rules framework

The opinion applies the rules then numbered Washington RPC 1.6 (confidentiality of client information) and RPC 8.4(d) (conduct prejudicial to the administration of justice), corresponding to Model Rules 1.6 and 8.4(d). The committee distinguished a broad request for client names, which the agency had no duty to answer, from a specific-matter inquiry, where withholding facts that would flag a potential conflict might cross into conduct prejudicial to the administration of justice.

Citations and references

Rules of Professional Conduct:

• Washington RPC 1.6 (confidentiality of information), corresponding to Model Rule 1.6.
• Washington RPC 8.4(d) (conduct prejudicial to the administration of justice), corresponding to Model Rule 8.4(d).

See also

• WSBA Ethics Op. 1064: a former agency lawyer at a firm adverse to the agency, screening and notice
• WSBA Ethics Op. 1056: documents from a party later adverse, and whether the matters are substantially related

Source

• Landing page: https://ao.wsba.org/print.aspx?ID=260

Original opinion text

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

Advisory Opinion: 1180
Year Issued: 1988
RPC(s): RPC 1.6; 8.4(d)
Subject: Client confidences and secrets; disclosure of names to former employee lawyer

The Committee reviewed your inquiry regarding the disclosure to a former lawyer employed by your agency of the names of clients represented by that lawyer or represented by other lawyers in your agency while that lawyer was employed with you. The Committee reviewed the specific requests submitted to your agency by the former lawyer, and was of the opinion that nothing in the Rules of Professional Conduct would require you to respond to those requests. By a vote of 8-4, the Committee was of the opinion that if the formerly employed lawyer made inquiry on a specific matter, failure to disclose facts which might alert the formerly employed lawyer to a potential conflict might violate RPC 8.4(d) prohibiting conduct prejudicial to the administration of justice.