In Re Gonzalez
2001 WL 617919, 773 A.2d 1026, 2001 D.C. App. LEXIS 124 (2001)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
Information gained during the professional relationship, the disclosure of which would be embarrassing or likely to be detrimental to the client, constitutes a client "secret" under professional conduct rules. A lawyer may not publicly reveal such secrets, including a client's non-payment of fees, non-cooperation, or misrepresentations, even when filing a motion to withdraw from representation.
Facts:
- Edward Gonzalez was retained by A.A. and her company, D.B.I., to defend them in a lawsuit in Virginia.
- A dispute arose when A.A. and D.B.I. failed to make payments to Gonzalez in accordance with their retainer agreement.
- Gonzalez sent several letters to A.A. complaining about the non-payment, her lack of cooperation, and her alleged misrepresentations to him.
- Gonzalez filed a 'Motion for Order Permitting Withdrawal from Representation' with the Virginia court where the lawsuit was pending.
- In the motion, Gonzalez alleged that his client had failed to pay her bills, missed appointments, failed to cooperate, and 'made misrepresentations to her attorneys.'
- Gonzalez attached to his motion copies of seven letters he had sent to A.A., one of which discussed the plaintiffs' settlement figures and the client's potential financial exposure in the case.
- A copy of the motion and its attachments was mailed to the opposing counsel in the litigation against A.A. and D.B.I.
Procedural Posture:
- The client, A.A., filed a complaint against attorney Edward Gonzalez with the District of Columbia Bar Counsel.
- Bar Counsel issued a 'Specification of Charges' against Gonzalez, alleging he violated professional conduct rules by revealing client secrets.
- The case was referred to an ad hoc Hearing Committee, which held a hearing and concluded that Gonzalez had not revealed a 'secret.'
- Bar Counsel excepted to the Hearing Committee's findings and appealed to the Board on Professional Responsibility.
- The Board on Professional Responsibility reversed the Hearing Committee, concluding Gonzalez had revealed secrets and directed Bar Counsel to issue an informal admonition.
- Gonzalez excepted to the Board's order, bringing the case for review before the District of Columbia Court of Appeals.
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 a lawyer's public disclosure of a client's non-payment, non-cooperation, and alleged misrepresentations in a motion to withdraw and its attachments constitute the revelation of a client 'secret' in violation of professional conduct rules?
Opinions:
Majority - Schwelb, J.
Yes. A lawyer's public disclosure of a client's non-payment, non-cooperation, and misrepresentations in a motion to withdraw constitutes the revelation of a client 'secret' in violation of professional conduct rules. The court, applying Virginia's Disciplinary Rule 4-101, determined that a client 'secret' includes any information 'gained in the professional relationship' whose disclosure 'would be embarrassing or would be likely to be detrimental to the client.' The court found that information regarding A.A.'s non-payment, lack of cooperation, and alleged misrepresentations was clearly 'gained in the professional relationship,' as it would not exist but for the representation. Furthermore, a public allegation from a client's own lawyer that she lied is inherently embarrassing and detrimental. The court rejected Gonzalez's argument that he needed to disclose these details to justify his withdrawal, stating that he could have submitted the documents for in camera review or made appropriate redactions to minimize harm to his client, which he failed to do.
Analysis:
This decision broadly interprets the scope of an attorney's duty of confidentiality, confirming that it extends beyond the substantive facts of a case to include information about the client's conduct within the attorney-client relationship itself. It establishes that a lawyer's frustration with a client's non-payment or dishonesty does not create an exception to the duty to protect client secrets in public court filings. The ruling sets a clear precedent that attorneys seeking to withdraw must use the least harmful means necessary, such as in camera review, to provide a court with justification, thereby prioritizing the client's interests even when the relationship has broken down.
