If someone calls wanting to hire you to sue an existing client, can you take the case or reveal what they told you?

Plain-English summary

The inquiry concerned the obligations of a lawyer who received a telephone call from a prospective client alleging that an existing estate-planning client may be the subject of a contemplated paternity action. The committee addressed the lawyer's duties in three parts.

The committee concluded that the lawyer is precluded by RPC 1.6(a) from disclosing the paternity allegation. It concluded that the lawyer must also decline representation of the potential paternity-action client under RPC 1.7(a). Finally, the committee concluded that the lawyer may continue to represent the estate-planning client, provided the lawyer declines further representation of the other potential client.

Currency note

This opinion was issued in 1998, 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 Treat this page as historical context, not current guidance.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 RPC 1.6 and RPC 1.7 correspond to ABA Model Rules 1.6 (confidentiality) and 1.7 (conflict of interest); duties to prospective clients are now addressed in Model Rule 1.18, which postdates this opinion.

Common questions

Q: Can you reveal what a would-be client told you about suing your existing client?

A: No. The committee concluded the lawyer is precluded by RPC 1.6(a) from disclosing the prospective client's paternity allegation.

Q: Can you take the case against your existing client?

A: No. The committee concluded the lawyer must decline to represent the potential paternity-action client under RPC 1.7(a).

Q: Can you keep representing the existing client?

A: Yes. The committee concluded the lawyer may continue to represent the estate-planning client, provided the lawyer declines further representation of the other potential client.

Background and rules framework

The opinion applied Washington RPC 1.6(a) (confidentiality) and RPC 1.7(a) (conflict of interest: directly adverse representations), corresponding to ABA Model Rules 1.6 and 1.7. The committee made the lawyer's duties turn on protecting the prospective client's disclosure while declining the adverse representation and retaining the existing client.

Citations and references

Rules of Professional Conduct:

• ABA Model Rule 1.6 (confidentiality); Washington RPC 1.6(a)
• ABA Model Rule 1.7 (conflict of interest: current clients); Washington RPC 1.7(a)

See also

• WA Ethics Op. 1821: Adverse Caller's Voicemail
• WA Ethics Op. 1834: Sharing a Deposition Transcript
• WA Ethics Op. 1819: Representing the Attorney-in-Fact

Source

• Landing page: https://ao.wsba.org/print.aspx?ID=1028

Original opinion text

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

Advisory Opinion: 1835
Year Issued: 1998
RPC(s): RPC 1.6; 1.7
Subject: Conflict of interest; client confidence or secret; lawyer receives phone call from potential client wishes to sue current client

I have been instructed by the Rules of Professional Conduct Committee to respond to your ethics inquiry #1835 concerning the obligations of a lawyer who received a telephone call from a prospective client alleging that an existing estate planning client may be subject of a contemplated paternity action.

It is the opinion of the committee that you are precluded by RPC 1.6(a) from disclosure of the paternity allegation. You must also decline representation of the potential paternity action client under RPC 1.7(a). Finally, you may continue to represent the estate planning client provided you decline further representation of the other potential client.