After jointly representing a mother and daughter who are now suing each other over their corporation, may the lawyer disclose what was learned, when one of them objects?

Plain-English summary

The lawyer had formerly represented a daughter in a marriage dissolution and had represented both the mother and the daughter in forming a corporation. The mother and daughter were now in litigation over the corporation. When the corporation was formed, the mother and daughter had an agreement that the daughter's ownership interests would not be openly disclosed, in order to protect them from the daughter's former spouse, and the lawyer had drawn up the employment agreement between the mother and daughter. The mother now objected to the lawyer disclosing any information, citing the prior representation of her.

Based on these facts, the committee was of the opinion that the lawyer could not disclose such information without a court order, as required by RPC 1.6.

Currency note

This opinion was issued in 1989, before the Washington State Bar Association's adoption of the 2006 revisions to the Washington Rules of Professional Conduct. Subsequent rule amendments or later opinions may have changed the analysis. Treat this page as historical context, not current guidance. Verify against current rules before relying on any specific rule, deadline, or requirement mentioned here.

Common questions

Q: Can a lawyer who jointly represented two clients disclose confidences when they later sue each other?

A: Under this 1989 opinion, on the facts presented the lawyer could not disclose the information without a court order, because one former client objected and RPC 1.6 controlled.

Q: What made the difference here?

A: The mother objected to disclosure based on the prior representation; the committee concluded RPC 1.6 barred disclosure absent a court order.

Q: What would permit disclosure?

A: The committee identified a court order as the route to disclosure on these facts.

Background and rules framework

RPC 1.6, Washington's version of ABA Model Rule 1.6, protects client confidences and secrets from disclosure absent an applicable exception. Applied to two clients the lawyer had formerly represented jointly and who were now adverse, with one objecting to disclosure, the committee concluded that the lawyer could not disclose the information without a court order.

Citations and references

Rules of Professional Conduct:

• ABA Model Rule 1.6 (confidentiality of information)
• Washington RPC 1.6

See also

• WA Ethics Op. 1281: Disclosing Client Confidences to a Nonlawyer Supervisor

Source

• Landing page: https://ao.wsba.org/print.aspx?ID=365

Original opinion text

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

The Committee reviewed your inquiry concerning disclosure of client confidences in a dispute between a mother and daughter. The Committee understood the facts to be that you had formerly represented the daughter in a marriage dissolution and that you had represented the mother and daughter in forming a corporation. Now the mother and daughter are in litigation over the corporation. When the corporation was formed, the mother and daughter had an agreement that the daughter's ownership interests in the corporation would not be openly disclosed in order to protect it from the former spouse. You drew up the employment agreement between the mother and daughter. Now the mother objects to you disclosing any information because of prior representation of her. Based upon these facts, the Committee was of the opinion that you could not disclose such information without a court order, as required by RPC 1.6.