Does a lawyer have to disclose a former client's threats to reveal others' crimes, or report that others may have committed crimes?

Plain-English summary

The inquiry raised whether the lawyer had an obligation to disclose a former client's activity in threatening to reveal criminal activity by others, or to reveal that others may have committed criminal acts.

The committee was of the opinion that RPC 1.6, while providing that a lawyer "may" disclose confidences or secrets to the extent reasonably necessary to prevent a client from committing a crime, imposes no obligation that a lawyer do so, and therefore imposes no obligation to report any criminal activity by others either. The committee was also of the opinion that the lawyer acted properly by withdrawing from further representation of the client.

Currency note

This opinion was issued in 1988, before the 2006 revisions to the Washington Rules of Professional Conduct. The rule it discusses, RPC 1.6 (confidentiality of information), corresponds to Model Rule 1.6 and has since been amended, including changes to the crime-fraud disclosure provisions. Treat this page as historical context, not current guidance.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: Must a lawyer report that a client threatened to reveal others' criminal activity?

A: Per the opinion, no. The committee was of the opinion that RPC 1.6 made disclosure permissive ("may") and imposed no obligation to disclose.

Q: Is there a duty to report that others may have committed crimes?

A: No. The committee reasoned that because RPC 1.6 imposes no obligation to disclose to prevent a client's crime, it imposes no obligation to report criminal activity by others either.

Q: Did the committee address the lawyer's withdrawal?

A: Yes. The committee was of the opinion that the lawyer acted properly by withdrawing from further representation of the client.

Background and rules framework

The opinion interprets Washington RPC 1.6 (confidentiality of information), corresponding to Model Rule 1.6. The committee read the rule's permissive verb as controlling: a lawyer "may" disclose confidences or secrets to the extent reasonably necessary to prevent a client's crime, but is under no obligation to do so, and therefore has no obligation to report criminal activity by others. The committee added that withdrawal from the representation was proper.

Citations and references

Rules of Professional Conduct:

• Washington RPC 1.6 (confidentiality of information; permissive disclosure to prevent a client's crime), corresponding to Model Rule 1.6.

See also

• WSBA Ethics Op. 1236: no duty to disclose a former client's intended perjury under RPC 1.6
• WSBA Ethics Op. 1213: a client's whereabouts as a protected confidence under RPC 1.6
• WSBA Ethics Op. 1149: a client's false deposition testimony, consent to disclose, or withdraw

Source

• Landing page: https://ao.wsba.org/print.aspx?ID=322

Original opinion text

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

Advisory Opinion: 1242
Year Issued: 1988
RPC(s): RPC 1.6
Subject: Client confidence or secret; duty to disclose criminal acts

The Committee considered your inquiry raising the question of whether you have an obligation to disclose a former client's activity in threatening to reveal criminal activity by others, or whether you have an obligation to reveal that others may have committed criminal acts. The Committee was of the opinion that RPC 1.6, while providing that a lawyer "may" disclose confidences or secrets to the extent reasonably necessary to prevent a client from committing a crime, imposes no obligation that a lawyer do so, and therefore would impose no obligation to report any criminal activity by others either. The Committee was of the opinion that you acted properly by withdrawing from further representation of your client.