Lawyers and Discretionary Disclosure: Ethics of Confidentiality
This paper examines the ethical tension lawyers face between the duty of client confidentiality and the moral obligation to disclose information about serious crimes. Drawing on Rule 1.6, landmark cases such as Upjohn Co. v. United States, and philosophical frameworks for resolving ethical dilemmas, the paper analyzes when discretionary disclosure is permissible, what consequences each option carries, and how an attorney should weigh competing duties. The paper concludes with a practical response to a case scenario involving a client who has confessed to the abduction and murder of a child, outlining the steps an attorney might take to protect both legal and moral obligations.
- Introduction: The Rule of Confidentiality: Legal history and purpose of attorney-client confidentiality
- Discretionary Disclosure: Rule 1.6 exceptions and scope of confidentiality
- Key Effects of Disclosure Choices: Consequences of revealing or withholding client secrets
- Resolving an Ethical Dilemma: Philosophical framework for ethical decision-making
- Conclusion: Responding to the Dilemma: Attorney's three-part action plan for the case
✍️ How to write this paper — guide, tools & examples ▾
What makes this paper effective
- The paper grounds its ethical argument in concrete legal authority, citing Rule 1.6 and Upjohn Co. v. United States, which gives the analysis credibility beyond mere opinion.
- It applies a structured three-step philosophical framework to the dilemma, balancing consequentialist and deontological reasoning rather than relying on one approach alone.
- The conclusion moves from abstract principle to a specific, personal action plan, demonstrating applied ethical reasoning with practical, real-world steps.
Key academic technique demonstrated
The paper demonstrates applied ethical analysis: it introduces a legal rule, identifies the tension it creates with moral duty, evaluates competing options and their consequences, and arrives at a reasoned course of action. This mirrors the structure expected in professional ethics writing — define the rule, identify the conflict, weigh the options, resolve.
Structure breakdown
The paper opens with the historical and legal basis for confidentiality, then narrows to the specific exemptions under Rule 1.6. A middle section weighs the practical effects of each disclosure option. A philosophical section provides a two-approach framework for resolving ethical dilemmas. The conclusion applies all prior analysis to a specific case scenario, offering three concrete courses of action the attorney could take. The overall flow moves from rule → conflict → analysis → resolution.
Introduction: The Rule of Confidentiality
Lawyers are bound by oath never to reveal information gathered during the entire duration of their representation of a client or their professional relationship with one. The rule of confidentiality has been preserved and cherished for ages. Its purpose is to draw the trust of a client into telling all to his lawyer or attorney — the only way the attorney can negotiate for the maximum benefit of the client. Discretionary disclosure, however, exempts the lawyer from this confidentiality oath under specific circumstances. This paper explores those exemptions and proposes a solution to the presented case.
The rule of confidentiality was first applied and stated in the case of Berd v. Lovelace and has been strongly upheld for three centuries (Stuart, 1997). It is meant to safeguard the confidence a client places in his counsel or attorney, whom the client must trust completely. The U.S. Supreme Court in Upjohn Co. v. United States, 449 U.S. 383 (1981), summarized the purpose of this rule from among many justifications: it is to "encourage the full and frank communication (Id at 389)" between a lawyer and his client. At the same time, it is meant to serve and enhance support for the public interest in observing the law and in the administration of justice.
The conflict between the need to protect client privileges and the requirement to obey the law places the lawyer, the attorney, and their relationship with the client in a difficult position. The rule is fundamentally designed to uncover the facts of a case from a client rather than to hide them. Its purpose is to enable the lawyer to advance the client's cause — something that hiding the facts cannot accomplish. At the risk of severe penalty, such as disbarment, a lawyer may not reveal information gathered during the entire duration of the client-lawyer relationship except under certain conditions. These conditions are: when the client consents to the disclosure; when the attorney reasonably believes that disclosure will prevent the commission of a criminal act by the client that will result in another person's death or bodily harm; and when the disclosure will serve to defend the lawyer in an eventual controversy between them (Stuart, 1997).
References
Hill, J., & Bleiberg, R. (2013). Managing ethical issues in your day-to-day practice. Hill and Bleiberg Injury Lawyers.
Schneider, B., & Levinson, J. P. (2005). Ethical dilemmas related to disclosure issues: Sex addiction therapists in the trenches. Retrieved from
Stuart, G. (1997). The ethical duty of confidentiality. Ethics Law. Retrieved from
White, T. L. (1993). Resolving an ethical dilemma. Ethics and Business. Retrieved from
Create your account
Always verify citation format against your institution’s current style guide requirements.