If a client's identity is confidential, can a lawyer disclose it to a prospective new firm running a conflicts check?

Plain-English summary

The lawyer's current firm had agreed to keep a client's identity confidential. The lawyer then received a job offer from another firm but could not satisfy that firm's request for a list of all clients she had worked for, because she could not reveal the client's identity. The committee framed the issue as the intersection between a lawyer's duty to keep client information confidential and a lawyer's ability to change employment.

Based on the facts presented, the committee concluded that the client's identity is a secret under RPC 1.6, the revelation of which would put the client at a disadvantage under RPC 1.9. Because a lawyer cannot proceed in any way that would put the client at a disadvantage, on the facts presented the client's identity cannot be disclosed.

Currency note

This opinion was issued in 1997, before the Washington State Bar Association's adoption of the 2006 revisions to the 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 Treat this page as historical context, not current guidance.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. Washington's cited rules correspond to ABA Model Rules 1.6 (confidentiality) and 1.9 (duties to former clients).

Common questions

Q: Can a lawyer give a prospective firm the name of a confidential client for a conflicts check?

A: On these facts, no. The committee concluded the client's identity is a secret under RPC 1.6 whose disclosure would disadvantage the client under RPC 1.9.

Q: Why does the duty block the conflicts check here?

A: Because the committee found that revealing the identity would put the client at a disadvantage, and a lawyer cannot proceed in any way that would do so.

Background and rules framework

The opinion applied RPC 1.6 (confidentiality, corresponding to ABA Model Rule 1.6) and RPC 1.9 (duties to former clients, corresponding to ABA Model Rule 1.9) where a client's identity itself had been agreed to be confidential. The committee treated the identity as a protected secret and tied the bar on disclosure to the disadvantage the client would suffer, even against a prospective employer's conflicts-screening request.

Citations and references

Rules of Professional Conduct:

• ABA Model Rule 1.6 (confidentiality); Washington RPC 1.6
• ABA Model Rule 1.9 (duties to former clients); Washington RPC 1.9

See also

• WA Ethics Op. 1754: Confidences in a Malpractice Defense
• WA Ethics Op. 1714: Reporting Tax Fraud in a Divorce
• WSBA Ethics Op. 1718: Leaving In-House for a Rival Field

Source

• Landing page: https://ao.wsba.org/print.aspx?ID=824

Original opinion text

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

Advisory Opinion: 1756
Year Issued: 1997
RPC(s): RPC 1.6
Subject: Client identity as confidence; disclosure of client identity to screen for conflicts when changing employment

[The lawyer's current firm agreed to keep a client's identity confidential. The lawyer received a job offer from another firm, but is unable to satisfy that firm's request for a list of all clients for whom she worked as she cannot reveal the client's identity.] The issue you raise involved the intersection between a lawyer's obligation to keep client information confidential, and a lawyer's ability to change employment. Based upon the facts you presented, it is the RPC Committee's opinion that the client's identity is a secret under RPC 1.6, the revelation of which would put the client at a disadvantage under RPC 1.9. Because a lawyer cannot proceed in any way which would put the client at a disadvantage, under the facts presented, the client's identity cannot be disclosed.