A lawyer learns a former client used a possibly fraudulent document to settle with an insurer and won't correct it; what are the lawyer's duties?

Plain-English summary

The inquiry concerned a lawyer who learns that, in connection with settling a claim with an insurance company, his former client prepared a possibly fraudulent document used in that settlement. The committee understood the facts to be that the lawyer had advised the client to disclose to the insurance company and to rectify the situation, which the client declined to do.

The committee was of the opinion that the lawyer had acted properly under RPC 3.3(d) in attempting to convince the client to authorize disclosure, and that RPC 1.6 would prevent the lawyer from making any further disclosures in the face of the client's unwillingness to do so. Under those circumstances, the committee was of the opinion that, pursuant to RPC 1.15, the lawyer would be obligated to withdraw from further representation of the client in this matter.

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 Treat this page as historical context, not current guidance.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: A client used a fraudulent document to settle and won't fix it; can the lawyer report it?

A: Under this 1989 opinion, no further disclosure. After the lawyer urged the client to authorize disclosure and the client refused, the committee was of the opinion that RPC 1.6 prevents the lawyer from making further disclosures.

Q: Did the lawyer do the right thing in pressing the client to come clean?

A: Yes. The committee was of the opinion that the lawyer acted properly under RPC 3.3(d) in attempting to convince the client to authorize disclosure.

Q: What must the lawyer do when the client refuses?

A: The committee was of the opinion that, under RPC 1.15, the lawyer is obligated to withdraw from further representation in the matter.

Background and rules framework

The opinion applies three rules in sequence. RPC 3.3(d), part of Washington's candor-to-the-tribunal rule, supported the lawyer's effort to get the client to authorize disclosure. RPC 1.6 protects confidences and bars further disclosure once the client refuses. RPC 1.15, the safekeeping/termination provision as numbered at the time (now ABA Model Rule 1.16), supplies the resulting duty to withdraw.

Citations and references

Rules of Professional Conduct:

• ABA Model Rule 3.3 (candor toward the tribunal)
• ABA Model Rule 1.6 (confidentiality of information)
• ABA Model Rule 1.16 (declining or terminating representation)
• Washington RPC 3.3(d), RPC 1.6, RPC 1.15

See also

• WA Ethics Op. 1322: Undisclosed Heir and Misdistributed Estate Funds
• WA Ethics Op. 1294: Disclosing a Client's Cured Fraud

Source

• Landing page: https://ao.wsba.org/print.aspx?ID=408

Original opinion text

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

The Committee reviewed your inquiry concerning the obligations of a lawyer who learns that, in connection with settling a claim with an insurance company, his former client prepared a possibly fraudulent document which was used in connection with that settlement. The Committee understood the facts in your inquiry to be that the lawyer had advised the client to make disclosure to the insurance company and to rectify the situation, which the client declined to do.

The Committee was of the opinion that the lawyer had acted properly pursuant to RPC 3.3(d) in attempting to convince the client to authorize the disclosure, and that RPC 1.6 would prevent the lawyer from making any further disclosures in the face of his client's unwillingness to do so. Under those circumstances, pursuant to RPC 1.15, the lawyer would be obligated to withdraw from further representation of the client in this matter.