Can an insurance-defense lawyer send billing records to the insurer's outside auditing company without breaching client confidentiality?

Plain-English summary

The inquiry concerned a request from an insurance company to an insured's defense counsel to submit the counsel's bills to an outside auditing company. The inquiring lawyer asked at what point the lawyer's normal practice information, such as telephone calls to clients regarding liability or record review, becomes confidential information protected by RPC 1.6.

The committee referred the inquiring lawyer to the definitions of confidences and secrets and to RPC 1.6. It explained that it was unable to make a general determination that any specific information is confidential without more information. The opinion's editor's note points to Formal Opinion 195.

Currency note

This opinion was issued in 1999, 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 Treat this page as historical context, not current guidance.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 confidentiality rule (RPC 1.6) was substantially revised in the 2006 revisions, including the move away from the older "confidences and secrets" terminology, so verify the current rule text before relying on it.

Common questions

Q: Did the committee say billing records are confidential under RPC 1.6?

A: Not categorically. It referred the lawyer to RPC 1.6 and the definitions of confidences and secrets, and said it could not make a general determination that any specific information is confidential without more information.

Q: What did the lawyer want to know?

A: At what point normal-practice information, such as telephone calls to clients about liability or record review, becomes confidential information protected by RPC 1.6 when bills are submitted to an outside auditing company.

Background and rules framework

The opinion applied Washington RPC 1.6 (confidentiality of information), corresponding to ABA Model Rule 1.6. At the time, the Washington rule protected client "confidences and secrets," and the committee directed the inquiring lawyer to those definitions and to RPC 1.6 rather than resolving the question on the limited facts presented.

Citations and references

Rules of Professional Conduct:

• ABA Model Rule 1.6 (confidentiality of information); Washington RPC 1.6

Other opinions cited:

• WSBA Formal Opinion 195 (referenced in the opinion's editor's note)

See also

• WA Ethics Op. 1758: Outside Audit of Lawyer Billing
• WA Ethics Op. 1316: Insurance Counsel, Coverage Secret
• WSBA Ethics Op. 943: Insurer Counsel and Confidences

Source

• Landing page: https://ao.wsba.org/print.aspx?ID=1065

Original opinion text

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

Advisory Opinion: 1872
Year Issued: 1999
RPC(s): RPC 1.6
Subject: Client confidence or secret; submission of billing records to third party billing auditing company

The inquiry concerned the ethical considerations of a request from an insurance company to an insured’s defense counsel to submit the counsel’s bills to an outside auditing company. The inquiring lawyer asks at what point does the lawyer’s normal practice, i.e., telephone calls to clients regarding liability or record review, become confidential information that is protected by RPC 1.6.

The inquiring lawyer is referred to the definitions of confidences and secrets, as well as RPC 1.6, with an explanation that the committee is unable to make a general determination that any specific information is confidential without more information.

[Editor's note: See Formal Opinion 195.]