If a judge informally asks a public defender whether particular clients have been meeting with the lawyer, may the lawyer answer?

Plain-English summary

The inquiry concerned informal meetings between a public defender and the presiding judge, during which the judge asks whether particular clients have been meeting with the lawyer. The committee was of the opinion that such information would constitute confidences or secrets of the client, and that pursuant to RPC 1.6 the lawyer could not disclose it unless the client consented to disclosure or the lawyer was ordered to do so by the court.

The committee was further of the opinion that RPC 3.3 would prohibit the lawyer from making evasive answers to such questions. The two rules operate together: the lawyer cannot reveal the protected information, and cannot dodge the question with a misleading non-answer.

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 Treat this page as historical context, not current guidance.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 public defender tell a judge whether a client has been meeting with the lawyer?

A: Under this 1989 opinion, no, not without the client's consent or a court order. The committee treated whether clients have met with the lawyer as a confidence or secret protected by RPC 1.6.

Q: If the lawyer cannot answer, can the lawyer just deflect the question?

A: No. The committee was of the opinion that RPC 3.3 prohibits the lawyer from making evasive answers to such questions.

Q: Does the setting being informal change anything?

A: No. The opinion addressed informal meetings with the presiding judge and still treated the information as protected; the informality of the exchange did not lift the confidentiality duty.

Background and rules framework

RPC 1.6, Washington's version of ABA Model Rule 1.6, protects client confidences and secrets, permitting disclosure on the client's consent or when ordered by a court. RPC 3.3, the candor rule, governs a lawyer's duty of truthfulness toward a tribunal. The committee applied both: the fact of client meetings is protected under RPC 1.6, and RPC 3.3 forecloses an evasive answer when the judge asks.

Citations and references

Rules of Professional Conduct:

• ABA Model Rule 1.6 (confidentiality of information)
• ABA Model Rule 3.3 (candor toward the tribunal)
• Washington RPC 1.6 and RPC 3.3

See also

• WSBA Ethics Op. 1149: Client's False Deposition Answer
• WA Ethics Op. 1298: Undisclosed Trust Account in Bankruptcy

Source

• Landing page: https://ao.wsba.org/print.aspx?ID=391

Original opinion text

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

The Committee reviewed your inquiry concerning informal meetings between you as a public defender and the presiding judge, during which the judge asks whether clients have been meeting with you. The Committee was of the opinion that such information would constitute confidences or secrets of your client, and that pursuant to RPC 1.6 you could not disclose such information unless your client consented to disclosure or you were ordered to do so by the court. The Committee was further of the opinion that RPC 3.3 would prohibit you from making evasive answers to such questions.