When the adopting client disappears, what may the lawyer tell the birth father who already consented to the adoption?
Apply this to your situation
This page answers the general question as of 1988. Ezel answers yours: whether it's allowed on your facts, under the current rules of professional conduct in your state, with citations.
Plain-English summary
The lawyer had obtained a consent to adoption from a natural father in connection with the client's proposed adoption. The client then disappeared, preventing the lawyer from going forward with the adoption proceeding.
The committee was of the opinion that RPC 8.4(c) and (d) would require the lawyer to advise the natural father that the lawyer is not going forward with the adoption proceeding. The committee was of the opinion that the lawyer should disclose no further information than that.
Currency note
This opinion was issued in 1988, before the 2006 revisions to the Washington Rules of Professional Conduct. The rule then numbered RPC 8.4(c) and (d) (misconduct) corresponds to Model Rule 8.4 and has since been amended. Treat this page as historical context, not current guidance. Verify against current rules before relying on any specific rule or requirement mentioned here.
Common questions
Q: When the adopting client disappears, must the lawyer tell the birth father who consented?
A: Per the opinion, yes, to a limited extent. The committee was of the opinion that RPC 8.4(c) and (d) require the lawyer to advise the natural father that the adoption proceeding is not going forward.
Q: How much can the lawyer tell the birth father?
A: The committee was of the opinion that the lawyer should disclose no further information than that the proceeding is not going forward.
Background and rules framework
The opinion applies the rule then numbered Washington RPC 8.4(c) and (d), corresponding to Model Rule 8.4, which addresses conduct involving dishonesty and conduct prejudicial to the administration of justice. The committee balanced the duty implied by those provisions, telling a party who relied on the proceeding that it will not continue, against the limit it set on disclosure: nothing beyond the bare fact that the matter is not going forward.
Citations and references
Rules of Professional Conduct:
- Washington RPC 8.4(c) and (d) (misconduct), corresponding to Model Rule 8.4.
See also
- WSBA Ethics Op. 1196: limits on disclosure of information over a client's objection
- WSBA Ethics Op. 954: options when a lawyer cannot locate the client
- WSBA Ethics Op. 1180: disclosing only what is needed and the limits set by RPC 8.4(d)
Source
- Landing page: https://ao.wsba.org/print.aspx?ID=286
Original opinion text
Reproduced from the official source for research purposes. The linked source is authoritative.
Advisory Opinion: 1206
Year Issued: 1988
RPC(s): RPC 8.4(c); 8.4(d)
Subject: Client confidences and secrets; missing client; disclosure to natural father in adoption proceeding
The Committee was of the opinion that where you had obtained a consent to adoption from a natural father in connection with your client's proposed adoption and now your client has disappeared, preventing you from going forward with the adoption proceeding, RPC 8.4(c) & (d) would require you to advise the natural father that you are not going forward with the adoption proceeding. The Committee was of the opinion that you should disclose no further information than that.
Get today's answer for your situation
You just read a 1988 opinion on this question. Ezel checks the current rules of professional conduct in your state and answers your specific situation, with citations.
Opens in Ezel Pro. Every answer cites the rules it relies on.