X Corp. v. Doe
805 F. Supp. 1298, 1992 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 13612, 1992 WL 210928 (1992)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
An attorney's voluntary disclosure of client information believed to show ongoing or future fraud is governed by the broader ethical duty of confidentiality, not the evidentiary attorney-client privilege. Under Virginia's ethical rules, such disclosure is permissible only if the information 'clearly establishes' the fraud, which is a higher standard than the 'prima facie' showing required to overcome the evidentiary privilege in litigation.
Facts:
- In March 1989, X Corp. hired John Doe as an in-house counsel.
- Upon being hired, Doe signed a Confidentiality Agreement in which he agreed to preserve X Corp.'s confidential information and return all company records upon termination.
- Doe was eventually promoted to Group Counsel with primary responsibility for X Corp.’s compliance with government regulations.
- X Corp. terminated Doe's employment effective February 28, 1992.
- Upon leaving his employment, Doe took with him copies of certain company documents.
- Doe alleged these documents revealed that X Corp. was defrauding the federal government on its contracts by commingling new and used equipment in sales requiring new equipment.
- Doe also alleged X Corp. was violating federal regulations by failing to report certain commercial customer discounts to the government.
Procedural Posture:
- John Doe, through his counsel, asserted a wrongful termination claim against his former employer, X Corp., and provided a draft complaint.
- X Corp. filed a lawsuit against Doe in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, seeking an injunction to prevent disclosure of confidential information and to compel the return of documents.
- Doe filed his wrongful termination action against X Corp. in the same court under a temporary seal.
- After Doe filed his suit, X Corp. notified him of its own pending lawsuit against him.
- X Corp. then moved the District Court for a preliminary injunction to prohibit Doe from disclosing confidential information and to force him to return the documents he took.
- In response, Doe filed a counterclaim against X Corp. alleging retaliatory discharge.
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 voluntary disclosure of a client's confidential information to expose an alleged ongoing fraud require that the evidence 'clearly establishes' the fraud under ethical rules, rather than merely making a 'prima facie' showing as required by the evidentiary crime-fraud exception?
Opinions:
Majority - Ellis, District Judge
Yes. An attorney's voluntary disclosure of confidential client information is governed by the ethical duty of confidentiality, which permits disclosure only when the information 'clearly establishes' that the client has perpetrated a fraud. This is a more stringent standard than the 'prima facie' showing required to overcome the evidentiary attorney-client privilege in a litigation context where disclosure is compelled. The court distinguishes between two distinct duties of confidentiality: the evidentiary attorney-client privilege and the broader ethical duty. The evidentiary privilege applies when a party in litigation seeks to compel disclosure, and its crime-fraud exception requires only a 'prima facie' showing of fraud, a standard applied by a judge. In contrast, the broader ethical duty governs an attorney's voluntary disclosures made outside of a court-compelled context. This ethical duty, under Virginia's DR4-101(C)(3), allows disclosure only for information that 'clearly establishes' a client's fraud. The court reasons that this higher standard is necessary because voluntary disclosures lack the safeguards of the adversarial process and judicial oversight. Because Doe seeks to voluntarily disclose information, he must meet this higher 'clearly establishes' standard, which requires convincing evidence, not mere suspicion. As this case presents grave and serious questions regarding whether Doe's evidence meets this standard, a preliminary injunction preventing disclosure is warranted to prevent the irreparable harm of lost confidentiality.
Analysis:
This opinion provides a critical clarification of the standards governing an attorney's disclosure of client fraud, distinguishing between compelled and voluntary disclosures. By applying the higher 'clearly establishes' ethical standard to whistleblowing lawyers, the court reinforces the robustness of the duty of confidentiality. This decision heightens the burden on in-house counsel and other attorneys who believe their clients are engaged in wrongdoing, requiring them to possess convincing evidence before they can ethically disclose privileged information voluntarily. The ruling underscores the significant risks attorneys face and may have a chilling effect on internal whistleblowing where the evidence of fraud is substantial but not yet conclusive.
Unlock the full brief for X Corp. v. Doe