Matter of Parrinello
67 N.Y.S.3d 355, 2017 NY Slip Op 8938, 156 A.D.3d 1216 (2017)
Rule of Law:
An attorney violates the Rules of Professional Conduct by knowingly disclosing confidential client information, even concerning a deceased former client, and such conduct warrants disciplinary action, including public censure.
Facts:
- Respondent, an attorney, was admitted to practice law in 1965 and maintained an office for the practice of law in Monroe County.
- Respondent publicly revealed confidential client information about a deceased former client to a news agency.
- The information disclosed by respondent was protected by the attorney-client relationship.
- Respondent conditionally admitted that he knowingly revealed the confidential client information.
- Respondent's improvident and improper remarks caused anguish to his former client's family.
- Respondent has a history of various pro bono representations and longstanding community and charitable activities.
Procedural Posture:
- In September 2016, the Appellate Division, Fourth Judicial Department, issued an order transferring respondent's file to the Appellate Division, Third Judicial Department.
- In June 2017, the petitioner (disciplinary committee) filed a petition of charges alleging that respondent violated three Rules of Professional Conduct due to the unauthorized disclosure of confidential client information.
- In July 2017, respondent filed an answer substantively denying the allegations.
- By a motion returnable October 10, 2017, the petitioner and respondent jointly moved for the imposition of a public censure upon respondent, with the consent of both parties, pursuant to Rules for Attorney Disciplinary Matters (22 NYCRR) § 1240.8 (a) (5).
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's unauthorized and knowing disclosure of confidential client information, even concerning a deceased former client, constitute professional misconduct warranting public censure?
Opinions:
Majority - Per Curiam.
Yes, an attorney's unauthorized and knowing disclosure of confidential client information, even concerning a deceased former client, constitutes professional misconduct warranting public censure. The court granted the parties' joint motion for public censure based on a stipulation of facts where respondent conditionally admitted to knowingly revealing confidential client information protected by the attorney-client relationship. This conduct violated Rules of Professional Conduct (22 NYCRR 1200.0) rules 1.6(a), 8.4(d), and (h), as it adversely reflected upon his fitness as a lawyer and was prejudicial to the administration of justice. The court considered aggravating factors, including respondent's prior disciplinary history, which involved an instance of private discipline and a six-month suspension for unrelated conduct. Mitigating factors included respondent's expression of remorse and regret for the anguish caused to his former client's family, his pro bono representations, and his community and charitable activities. The court held that public censure was the appropriate sanction to protect the public, maintain the honor and integrity of the profession, and deter others from committing similar misconduct.
Analysis:
This case reaffirms the stringent and enduring duty of confidentiality owed by attorneys to their clients, extending even to deceased former clients. It illustrates that courts view unauthorized disclosure of confidential information as serious professional misconduct, irrespective of the attorney's specific intent to cause harm, and that disciplinary actions like public censure are warranted even when mitigating factors are present. The ruling underscores the fundamental importance of protecting the attorney-client privilege as essential to the integrity of the legal system and public trust in the profession.
