Can a lawyer's detailed bills be sent to an outside auditor without the client's consent?
Apply this to your situation
This page answers the general question as of 1997. Ask about yours and see what the current Washington Rules of Professional Conduct say for your facts, with citations.
Plain-English summary
The inquiry concerned the ethical implications of detailed bills going to outside parties without client consent. The committee's opinion was that the inquiry is controlled by the analysis in Formal Opinion 183.
Based on the information provided, particularly the representation as to the information in the billing and the representation that the client has not consented, the committee believed that the release of this information as contemplated would be impermissible under RPC 1.4 and 1.6. An editor's note to the opinion directs readers to Formal Opinion 195.
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 Treat this page as historical context, not current guidance.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. The opinion's own editor's note points to Formal Opinion 195. Washington's cited rules correspond to ABA Model Rules 1.4 (communication) and 1.6 (confidentiality of information).
Common questions
Q: Can a lawyer release detailed client bills to an outside auditor without the client's consent?
A: On the facts presented, with the client not having consented, the committee believed the release would be impermissible under RPC 1.4 and 1.6.
Q: What earlier opinion controls the analysis?
A: The committee said the inquiry is controlled by the analysis in Formal Opinion 183, and an editor's note also points to Formal Opinion 195.
Background and rules framework
The opinion applied RPC 1.6 (confidentiality of information) and RPC 1.4 (communication), corresponding to ABA Model Rules 1.6 and 1.4. The committee tied the impermissibility of disclosing detailed billing to outside parties to the content of the billing information and the absence of client consent, following Formal Opinion 183.
Citations and references
Rules of Professional Conduct:
- ABA Model Rule 1.4 (communication); Washington RPC 1.4
- ABA Model Rule 1.6 (confidentiality of information); Washington RPC 1.6
Other opinions cited:
- WSBA Formal Opinion 183: controls the analysis of disclosing billing information.
- WSBA Formal Opinion 195: cited in the opinion's editor's note.
See also
- WA Ethics Op. 1754: Confidences in a Malpractice Defense
- WA Ethics Op. 1756: Confidential Client and Conflicts Check
- WA Ethics Op. 1770: Signing a Settlement NDA
Source
- Landing page: https://ao.wsba.org/print.aspx?ID=949
Original opinion text
Reproduced from the official source for research purposes. The linked source is authoritative.
Advisory Opinion: 1758
Year Issued: 1997
RPC(s): RPC 1.4; 1.6. Formal Opinion 183
Subject: Confidentiality and outside auditing of lawyer's billing.
Your inquiry concerned the ethical implications of detailed bills going to outside parties without client consent. It is the RPC Committee's opinion that this inquiry is controlled by the analysis in Formal Opinion 183. Based upon the information provided in your inquiry, particularly the representation as to the information in the billing, and the representation that the client has not consented, the Committee believes that the release of this information as contemplated would be impermissible under RPC 1.4 and 1.6.
[Editor's Note: See Formal Opinion 195.]
What do the rules say today, for your facts?
This opinion is from 1997. Ezel checks the current Washington Rules of Professional Conduct against your situation and cites the rules it relies on.
Opens in Ezel Pro.
- Checks the law as it stands today, not only this page
- Cites every source it relies on, so you can verify it
- Chat, drafting and research in one workspace