## Facts

- Matthew M. Diaz was a Kansas-licensed attorney serving as a U.S. Navy Judge Advocate assigned to Joint Task Force Guantánamo.
- After federal habeas rights for Guantánamo detainees were recognized, a civil-rights attorney sought detainee-identifying information to assist unrepresented detainees.
- Diaz believed detainees should have meaningful access to habeas review and understood the Navy would not release the requested information.
- Diaz knew he had lawful options (e.g., raising concerns through command channels or seeking ethics guidance) but feared career consequences.
- While alone at work, Diaz printed a classified list containing detainee names, internment serial numbers, countries of origin, and interrogation-team assignments.
- Diaz cut the list into strips, placed them in a Valentine’s Day card, and mailed it anonymously to the requesting attorney.
- The recipient turned the material over to authorities, and the disclosure was traced to Diaz.
- A military court-martial convicted Diaz of four felonies for improperly disclosing classified information; he was dismissed from the Navy, confined for six months, and lost his authorization to practice as a Navy attorney.
- The felony convictions triggered temporary suspension of Diaz’s Kansas law license, followed by formal disciplinary proceedings seeking final discipline.

## Issues

1. Whether Diaz’s intentional, unauthorized disclosure of classified information constituted professional misconduct under KRPC 1.6 and KRPC 8.4(b), (c), and (d).
2. What final sanction was appropriate given Diaz’s claimed motives, lack of financial gain, criminal convictions, and the risks posed by the disclosure.

## Decision

- The Kansas Supreme Court found Diaz violated KRPC 1.6 and KRPC 8.4.
- The court treated the classified detainee-identifying information as confidential information relating to representation of Diaz’s government client.
- The court relied on Diaz’s multiple felony convictions as proof of criminal acts reflecting adversely on fitness and as aggravating evidence of serious misconduct.
- The court concluded Diaz acted intentionally and knowingly, using a method designed to avoid detection and bypass established procedures.
- The court rejected the hearing panel’s recommended three-year suspension and ordered disbarment.

## Legal Principles

- A government lawyer’s client is the government entity served; information obtained through that representation is protected by KRPC 1.6 absent authorization or an applicable exception.
- Felony convictions for conduct tied to representation can constitute misconduct under KRPC 8.4(b) because they reflect adversely on a lawyer’s honesty, trustworthiness, or fitness.
- Secret, unauthorized transmission of protected information may constitute dishonesty under KRPC 8.4(c) and conduct prejudicial to the administration of justice under KRPC 8.4(d).
- Claimed public-interest motives do not permit a lawyer to unilaterally override client confidentiality, particularly where classified or security-sensitive information is involved.
- In selecting sanction, the court weighs intent, risk of harm, breach of trust, aggravating and mitigating factors, and the goals of public protection, professional integrity, and deterrence; intentional disclosure of classified client information may warrant disbarment.

## Conclusion

The Kansas Supreme Court disbarred Diaz for intentionally and secretly disclosing classified government information to an outside advocate, holding that his motives did not excuse breaches of confidentiality and that the seriousness of the misconduct and related felony convictions required the profession’s most severe sanction.


In re Diaz, 288 P.3d 486 (Kan. 2012)