Must a new lawyer disclose a client's past fraud (assisted by a prior lawyer) that the new lawyer has already helped cure?

Plain-English summary

A prior lawyer had assisted the client in deceiving a third party regarding ownership of a business. The client later contacted the inquiring lawyer, who prepared documents that reflected the true status of the business's ownership. The committee reviewed the facts and concluded that, to the extent some fraud was committed, that fraud had now been "cured." The committee was of the opinion that unless the client consented to disclosure, RPC 4.1 and RPC 1.6 would prohibit such disclosure.

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 Treat this page as historical context, not current guidance.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: Must a new lawyer disclose a client's earlier fraud once it has been cured?

A: Under this 1989 opinion, no, not without the client's consent. The committee concluded that, the fraud having been cured, RPC 4.1 and RPC 1.6 prohibit disclosure absent consent.

Q: What made disclosure impermissible here?

A: The committee treated the fraud as cured by the corrected documents, so the disclosure exception did not apply, and RPC 1.6 confidentiality governed.

Q: What would allow disclosure?

A: The client's consent.

Background and rules framework

RPC 1.6 (ABA Model Rule 1.6) protects client confidences and secrets. RPC 4.1 (ABA Model Rule 4.1) addresses truthfulness to others and, in its disclosure branch, can require revealing a material fact to avoid assisting a client's continuing crime or fraud. The committee found the fraud cured by the documents reflecting the true ownership, so no disclosure duty arose under RPC 4.1, and RPC 1.6 barred disclosure absent the client's consent.

Citations and references

Rules of Professional Conduct:

• ABA Model Rule 1.6 (confidentiality of information)
• ABA Model Rule 4.1 (truthfulness in statements to others)
• Washington RPC 1.6; RPC 4.1

See also

• WA Ethics Op. 1287: Disbursing Trust Funds to a Doctor Suspected of Fraud
• WA Ethics Op. 1288: Disclosing a Court-Appointed Client's Eligibility Fraud

Source

• Landing page: https://ao.wsba.org/print.aspx?ID=374

Original opinion text

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

A prior lawyer assisted the client in deceiving a third party regarding ownership of a business. The client later contacted the inquiring lawyer who prepared documents that reflected the true status of the business's ownership. The Committee reviewed the facts of your inquiry and concluded that, to the extent some fraud was committed, that fraud has now been "cured." The Committee was of the opinion that unless your client consented to disclosure, RPC 4.1 and 1.6 would prohibit such disclosure.