By Anne M. Rudolph 

In 2018, the Supreme Court rejected a proposed modified version of Model Rule 1.14 which would have allowed an attorney to take protective action if the attorney reasonably believed that the client had diminished capacity, was unable to act in the client’s own interest, and was at significant risk of physical, psychological or financial harm. Though the Supreme Court did not state its reason for the rejection, it is understood that the proposed rule was rejected because taking such protective action would have required an attorney to disclose a client’s confidential information in contradiction of the attorney’s duty under Business and Professions Code 6068, subdivision (e).  Read More

By Timothy Casey

This issue of Ethics in Brief covers an attorney’s duty of confidentiality and a commonly held misconception regarding a “public records” exception to the duty of confidentiality. The misconception may stem from a conflation of the ethical duty of confidentiality with the evidentiary rule about the attorney-client privilege. In sum, there is no public records exception to the duty of confidentiality, although information revealed in a public record may not be privileged. Read More

By Edward J. McIntyre

We tend to think of our obligations under the Rules of Professional Conduct as personal duties specific to our own conduct. And, indeed, the rules prescribe permissible conduct for California lawyers. Those obligations, however, stretch beyond what each of us may or must do and say. Read More