## Facts

- A law firm jointly represented a husband and wife in estate planning and obtained signed conflict-waiver letters stating information from one spouse could be shared with the other.
- The firm drafted reciprocal wills leaving each spouse’s residuary estate to the other, with contingent beneficiaries defined as the testator’s “issue,” a term that includes nonmarital children.
- Due to a conflict-checking error, the firm later undertook representation of a second client (the mother) in a paternity action against the husband while still representing the spouses in estate planning.
- The husband retained separate counsel for the paternity matter, initially denied paternity, and later acknowledged he was the father.
- The spouses executed the estate-planning documents without the wife being informed that the husband had another child whose status as “issue” could affect the wife’s testamentary disposition.
- After the conflict was discovered, the firm withdrew from the paternity representation and advised the husband it believed it had an ethical obligation to notify the wife that the husband had an additional child, while not disclosing the mother’s or child’s identity.
- The husband sought to restrain the firm from informing the wife; the trial court allowed disclosure, the appellate court imposed restrictions, and the state supreme court granted interlocutory review.

## Issues

1. In a joint representation of spouses for estate planning, may a law firm disclose to one spouse confidential information about the other spouse—specifically, the existence of a nonmarital child—when that fact is material to the estate plan?
2. If limited disclosure is allowed, may the firm disclose identifying information about the mother or the child?

## Decision

- The court permitted the firm to inform the wife that the husband has an additional child because the fact was material to the estate-planning representation and within the scope of the spouses’ joint engagement and conflict waivers.
- The court prohibited disclosure of the identity of the mother or the child to protect confidentiality owed to the mother as a former client and to avoid unnecessary disclosure.
- The appellate court’s restraints were reversed in part, and a limited-disclosure remedy was authorized.

## Legal Principles

- In joint representation, a lawyer’s duty of communication to each co-client can require disclosure of material information affecting the joint matter, even if adverse to the other co-client.
- Conflict waivers and joint-representation understandings may reduce a co-client’s expectation that material information related to the joint matter will be withheld from the other co-client.
- When confidentiality duties compete with duties to inform a co-client of material facts, the appropriate response may be limited disclosure narrowly tailored to what is reasonably necessary for the informed client to protect their interests.
- A lawyer must avoid revealing identifying or extraneous confidential information of other current or former clients when the co-client can be adequately informed without it.
- Withdrawal from a conflicted representation does not eliminate continuing confidentiality obligations to a former client.

## Conclusion

A law firm that jointly represents spouses in estate planning may disclose to the wife that the husband has another child when the fact is material to the estate plan, but must restrict disclosure to that fact alone and may not reveal the mother’s or child’s identity.


A. v. B., 726 A.2d 924 (N.J. 1999)