## Facts

- A successor attorney learned that predecessor counsel (“attorney X”) had embezzled a substantial amount of client funds held in an escrow account connected to the representation.
- The successor attorney learned of the misconduct from attorney X’s admission, not from a client communication.
- The successor attorney advised the client that he believed he was required to report the misconduct.
- The client instructed the successor attorney not to report attorney X, citing a friendly relationship and concerns about replacement of the funds.
- Attorney X repaid the embezzled funds, and the client continued to refuse authorization to disclose the misconduct.
- The Supreme Court Ethics Advisory Panel issued Opinion No. 92-1, concluding the successor attorney was prohibited from reporting attorney X without client consent because the information was protected by confidentiality and reporting was excused under the reporting rule’s confidentiality exception.
- The Chief Disciplinary Counsel petitioned the Rhode Island Supreme Court to review and rescind Opinion No. 92-1.

## Issues

1. Whether Rule 1.6 confidentiality prohibits a lawyer from reporting another lawyer’s embezzlement of client funds when the reporting lawyer learned of the misconduct from the wrongdoer’s admission rather than from the client.
2. Whether the reporting obligation in Rule 8.3 is excused under Rule 8.3(c) when disclosure would involve information “relating to the representation,” despite the source being the wrongdoer.

## Decision

- The court granted the petition for review and set aside Ethics Advisory Panel Opinion No. 92-1.
- The court held the Panel misinterpreted Rules 1.6 and 8.3 by treating the wrongdoer’s admission as protected client confidentiality merely because it related to the representation.
- The court concluded the successor attorney was not ethically prohibited by Rule 1.6 from reporting attorney X’s embezzlement to disciplinary authorities, notwithstanding the client’s instruction not to disclose.
- The court reasoned that reading confidentiality so broadly would substantially weaken the profession’s self-regulatory system by shielding serious dishonesty from reporting.

## Legal Principles

- Rule 1.6 does not categorically bar disclosure of serious attorney misconduct when the information is obtained from the wrongdoer’s admission rather than from a client’s confidential communication.
- Rule 8.3’s duty to report serious misconduct must be applied so that the confidentiality exception in Rule 8.3(c) does not function as a general safe harbor for financial defalcations.
- Client preference not to report cannot, by itself, convert non-client-sourced information into protected confidentiality or negate professional duties directed to the integrity of the bar and protection of the public.
- Interpretation of confidentiality rules must account for the regulatory purpose of attorney discipline and avoid constructions that primarily protect the wrongdoer rather than client interests.

## Conclusion

The Rhode Island Supreme Court rescinded an ethics advisory opinion that treated a predecessor lawyer’s admission of embezzlement as confidential client information, holding that the successor lawyer was not barred by Rule 1.6 from reporting the misconduct and that the reporting rules must not be read to permit serious dishonesty to go unreported.


In re Ethics Advisory Panel Op. No. 92-1, 627 A.2d 317 (R.I. 1993)