Disciplinary Counsel v. Cicero
134 Ohio St.3d 311, 2012 Ohio 5457 (2012)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
An attorney violates the duty of confidentiality owed to a prospective client under Professional Conduct Rule 1.18 when they reveal specific, non-public information learned during an initial consultation, even if no formal client-lawyer relationship is ever established.
Facts:
- On April 1, 2010, federal agents raided Edward Rife's home and seized Ohio State University football memorabilia as part of a drug-trafficking investigation.
- The next day, Rife and a business partner, Joseph Epling, contacted attorney Christopher Cicero to discuss Rife's criminal case.
- On April 2, Cicero sent an email to Ohio State football coach Jim Tressel, providing general information about the raid and Rife's connection to the team.
- Rife met with Cicero in person on April 15 to further discuss his legal situation and the possibility of retaining Cicero as his lawyer.
- During the April 15 meeting, Rife shared sensitive and specific details about his case, including the types of memorabilia seized and a potential ten-year plea deal offered by the government.
- Rife assumed his conversation with Cicero was confidential and did not give him permission to share the information.
- On April 16, Cicero sent two emails to Tressel disclosing the specific details Rife had shared, stating, "I had Eddie Rife in my office for an hour and a half last night," and revealing information about the memorabilia and the plea offer.
Procedural Posture:
- Disciplinary Counsel filed a complaint against attorney Christopher Cicero with the Board of Commissioners on Grievances and Discipline.
- A panel of the Board conducted a hearing and found that Cicero violated Professional Conduct Rules 1.18 and 8.4(h).
- The panel recommended that Cicero's law license be suspended for six months.
- The full Board of Commissioners on Grievances and Discipline adopted the panel's findings of fact, misconduct, and recommended sanction.
- Cicero filed objections to the Board's report, bringing the matter before the Supreme Court of Ohio for final review and decision.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does an attorney violate Professional Conduct Rules 1.18 and 8.4(h) by revealing specific, confidential information learned during a consultation with a prospective client to a third party, when no formal representation ensues?
Opinions:
Majority - Lanzinger, J.
Yes. An attorney violates Professional Conduct Rules 1.18 and 8.4(h) by revealing confidential information learned from a prospective client. Rife was a prospective client because he met with Cicero to discuss the possibility of forming a client-lawyer relationship. Under Prof.Cond.R. 1.18(b), Cicero had a duty not to reveal information learned in that consultation. The exception for "generally known" information under Prof.Cond.R. 1.9(c)(1) does not apply because Cicero disclosed specific details—such as the inventory of seized items and the terms of a potential plea deal—that he could only have learned during his private consultation with Rife. This breach of trust, which is central to the attorney-client relationship, adversely reflects on Cicero's fitness to practice law and therefore also violates Prof.Cond.R. 8.4(h).
Dissenting - Lundberg Stratton, J.
Yes. The dissent agrees with the majority's finding that Cicero violated the rules of professional conduct. However, the dissent disagrees with the severity of the sanction. The dissent argues that Cicero's motive was not selfish self-aggrandizement but rather an attempt to alert the coach to potential misconduct by players that could harm the team. The fact that Cicero asked the coach to keep the information confidential suggests he was not seeking personal fame. Therefore, a less severe sanction, such as a six-month stayed suspension, would be more appropriate.
Analysis:
This case is significant as it was the first time the Supreme Court of Ohio interpreted Professional Conduct Rule 1.18, firmly establishing that a robust duty of confidentiality applies to prospective clients. The decision clarifies that this duty attaches even after a brief initial consultation where no representation is ultimately formed. It also narrowly construes the "generally known" information exception, signaling to attorneys that they cannot disclose specific details learned in confidence even if the general subject matter is public. This precedent serves as a critical warning about the sanctity of preliminary legal consultations and the broad scope of confidentiality obligations.
Unlock the full brief for Disciplinary Counsel v. Cicero