## Facts

- An Indiana attorney (“Respondent”) represented an organization that employed “AB” and became acquainted with AB through that relationship.
- In December 2007, AB and her husband were involved in a domestic dispute that resulted in police involvement; AB’s husband told police that AB had threatened to harm him.
- In January 2008, AB called Respondent to discuss the dispute and her husband’s allegation and said she and her husband had separated.
- Later that month, AB called Respondent again and asked for a referral to a family-law attorney.
- Respondent referred AB to another lawyer in Respondent’s firm, contacted that lawyer about the referral, and provided AB’s contact information.
- AB met with the referred lawyer, retained her, and directed the lawyer to file a divorce petition; Respondent was aware that AB retained the firm and that a divorce petition was filed.
- AB and her husband soon reconciled; at AB’s request, the divorce petition was dismissed and the firm’s representation of AB ended.
- In March or April 2008, while socializing with two friends (one of whom was also AB’s friend), Respondent—unaware of the reconciliation—told the friends about AB’s divorce filing and about the husband’s accusation that AB had threatened him.
- Respondent encouraged AB’s friend to contact AB after the friend expressed concern.
- After AB learned of the disclosure from the mutual friend, AB filed a grievance against Respondent.
- The Indiana Supreme Court Disciplinary Commission filed a verified disciplinary complaint alleging that Respondent violated Indiana Professional Conduct Rule 1.9(c)(2).
- A hearing officer found a violation, and the case proceeded to the Supreme Court of Indiana for final action.

## Issues

1. Whether Respondent violated Indiana Professional Conduct Rule 1.9(c)(2) by revealing, in a social conversation, information relating to a former client’s representation (a divorce filing and related domestic-dispute allegations).
2. What discipline is appropriate for the disclosure.

## Decision

- The Supreme Court of Indiana found that Respondent engaged in attorney misconduct by improperly revealing information relating to the representation of a former client.
- The Court concluded that Respondent violated Professional Conduct Rule 1.9(c)(2).
- The Court imposed a private reprimand.

## Legal Principles

- A lawyer’s duty not to reveal information relating to a client’s representation continues after the client-lawyer relationship ends; Rule 1.9 governs duties to former clients.
- Indiana Professional Conduct Rule 1.9(c)(2) prohibits a lawyer from revealing information relating to the representation of a former client except as the Rules of Professional Conduct permit or require.
- Information “relating to the representation” is broader than attorney-client privileged communications; it includes representation-related facts learned through the lawyer’s involvement with the matter, including through a referral within the lawyer’s firm.
- Disclosing former-client information to third parties in a personal or social setting can violate Rule 1.9(c)(2), even when the lawyer’s motive is concern rather than hostility.
- When no rule-based exception authorizes disclosure, a well-meaning reason for speaking does not excuse revealing former-client information; discipline may be imposed to protect client confidentiality and public confidence in the legal profession.

## Conclusion

Matter of Anonymous, 932 N.E.2d 671 (Ind. 2010) is an attorney-discipline decision in which the Indiana Supreme Court privately reprimanded a lawyer for telling friends that a former client had filed for divorce and that the client’s husband had accused her of making threats—information learned in connection with a referral and representation at the lawyer’s firm—because the disclosure violated Rule 1.9(c)(2)’s bar on revealing information relating to a former client’s matter absent an applicable exception.
