Let's talk about this. Why would the attorney not be subject to discipline for violating the ethical

Fantastic news! We've Found the answer you've been seeking!

Question:

Let's talk about this. Why would the attorney not be subject to discipline for violating the ethical duty of confidentiality if she provides the testimony without objection?

Hi there could you help me with this question

First, let's consider the attorney's duties besides confidentiality. An attorney's duty of diligent representation requires an attorney to "pursue a matter on behalf of a client despite opposition, obstruction or personal inconvenience to the lawyer, and take whatever lawful and ethical measures are required to vindicate a client's cause or endeavor" (Rule 1.3, comment 1) and the attorney's duty of communication requires giving the client sufficient information "to permit the client to make informed decisions regarding the representation." (Rule 1.4) How, then, could the attorney unilaterally choose to abandon a valid attorney-client privilege exception and simply testify?

Well, you might say, an attorney also has a duty to obey a court order. And I agree. But look at the language of Rule 3.4(c) regarding the obligation to obey the court's rule. It provides that "A lawyer shall not: (c) knowingly disobey an obligation under the rules of a tribunal except for an open refusal based on an assertion that no valid obligation exists." (emphasis added). Doesn't this mean that an attorney's obligation to obey court rules is not an obligation to blindly obey?

Moreover, let's consider the text of Rule 1.6. Yes, the rule does provide that "A lawyer may reveal information relating to the representation of a client to the extent the lawyer reasonably believes necessary:... (6) to comply with other law or a court order." But notice that the disclosure is only "the the extent the lawyer reasonably believes necessary." How can an attorney reasonably believe it necessary to testify about matters the attorney believes are arguably protected by the attorney-client privilege without securing a court's ruling on that question? In fact, comment 13 to Rule 1.6 makes an attorney's obligations clear in this situation: "A lawyer may be ordered to reveal information relating to the representation of a client by a court or by another tribunal or governmental entity claiming authority pursuant to other law to compel the disclosure. Absent informed consent of the client to do otherwise, the lawyer should assert on behalf of the client all nonfrivolous claims that the order is not authorized by other law or that the information sought is protected against disclosure by the attorney-client privilege or other applicable law." I think it is crystal clear that an attorney who lacks client consent to testify and has a non-frivolous argument that the testimony sought is protected by the attorney-client privilege, must raise that objection or the attorney will have violated the duty of confidentiality.

What do you think of my argument? (Remember, we're just talking here... this isn't a scored question).

According to the aba rules, how can this position be debated?