## Facts

- An Oregon lawyer represented a noncitizen client in removal proceedings based on Oregon burglary and theft convictions.
- The lawyer lost before an immigration judge, and a removal order issued; the client later retained new counsel and removal proceedings were terminated.
- The client posted negative online reviews criticizing the lawyer’s services and stating the lawyer “lost” the case; the client referenced “charges” but did not specify convictions or crimes.
- The lawyer publicly replied on review platforms, disclosing details about the client’s immigration matter and criminal convictions, and on one platform identified the client by full name.
- The Oregon State Bar charged the lawyer with violating the duty of confidentiality under Oregon RPC 1.6(a).

## Issues

1. Whether the lawyer’s online replies revealed “information relating to the representation of a client” under Oregon RPC 1.6(a), even if some information was publicly available or partially disclosed by the client.
2. Whether Oregon RPC 1.6(b)(5) permitted disclosure as “self-defense” to respond to allegations in a “proceeding” concerning the lawyer’s representation.
3. Whether disciplining the lawyer for the disclosures violated the First Amendment.
4. What sanction was appropriate for the misconduct.

## Decision

- The Oregon Supreme Court, reviewing de novo, found the lawyer violated RPC 1.6(a) by publicly disclosing client-related information, including the client’s convictions, immigration status, and (in one response) identity.
- The court held RPC 1.6(b)(5) did not apply because online reviews are not a “proceeding,” and the disclosures exceeded what would be reasonably necessary even if the exception were available.
- The court rejected the First Amendment defense, concluding enforcement of RPC 1.6 as applied was a permissible regulation of professional conduct that only incidentally burdened speech.
- The court imposed a public reprimand, declining to adopt the trial panel’s recommended 30-day suspension.

## Legal Principles

- RPC 1.6(a) covers all information relating to the representation, regardless of source; information does not lose protection merely because it appears in public records or could be discovered by others.
- A client’s limited public criticism does not authorize a lawyer to disclose additional client information in a public forum.
- The RPC 1.6(b)(5) “self-defense” exception is limited to responding to allegations in a “proceeding,” understood as a formal adjudicative or investigative process, not informal public commentary.
- Even where an exception permits disclosure, the lawyer must limit disclosure to what the lawyer reasonably believes is necessary for the permitted purpose.
- Confidentiality rules may be enforced against lawyers without violating the First Amendment when they regulate professional obligations and leave open nonconfidential means of responding.

## Conclusion

The Oregon Supreme Court held that a lawyer breached client confidentiality by responding to negative online reviews with public disclosures about the client’s identity, criminal convictions, and immigration status; neither the self-defense exception nor the First Amendment excused the conduct, and the appropriate sanction was a public reprimand.


In re Conduct of Conry, 491 P.3d 42 (Or. 2021)