Bell/Gaerte: 3 things to know about confidentiality

James J. Bell , K. Michael Gaerte
December 18, 2013
Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

Bell Gaerte 3 thingsOver the past several years, attorneys and their staff have gained access to the world of social media. Through social media, those who work in the legal profession are able to communicate quickly and easily to a large audience. However, easy access to social media should be accompanied by ethical caution. While social media has not mandated the creation of new ethical guidelines, it does make it easier to commit an ethical foul. Of course, one of the easiest ways for lawyers and their staff to violate the Indiana Rules of Professional Conduct is by revealing too much information in social media.

With that, here are three things to know about confidentiality:

1. The duty of confidentiality is broad.

While some lawyers may equate the duty of confidentiality with the attorney-client privilege, the duty of confidentiality goes far beyond privileged communications with a client. In fact, arguably, the rule covers anything that pertains to a client’s case. Rule 1.6 of the Indiana Rules of Professional Conduct states that “[a] lawyer shall not reveal information relating to representation of a client” and the Supreme Court of Indiana has noted that the confidentiality “protection provided is broad.” Matter of Anonymous, 932 N.E.2d 671, 674 (Ind. 2010). The “confidentiality rule, for example, applies not only to matters communicated in confidence by the client but also to all information relating to the representation, whatever its source.” Ind. Prof. Cond. R. 1.6, cmt. [3].

In the Matter of Anonymous, an attorney argued to the Supreme Court that she had not revealed confidential information due to the fact that the prospective client had disclosed the same information in question to her co-workers. However, the Supreme Court disagreed and stated that “the fact that a client may choose to confide to others information relating to a representation does not waive or negate confidentiality protections of the Rules.” Anonymous, 932 N.E. 2d at 674.

In addition, the attorney attempted to argue that she had not revealed confidential information because that information could be discovered through a search of public records. The court again disagreed and concluded that “the Rules contain no exception allowing revelation of information relating to a representation even if a diligent researcher could unearth it through public sources.” Id.

2. With regard to confidentiality, prospective clients are clients.

For purposes of confidentiality, an attorney should treat prospective clients the same as the attorney would treat plain old clients. “Even when no client-lawyer relationship ensues, a lawyer who has had discussions with a prospective client shall not use or reveal information learned in the consultation.” Prof. Cond. R. 1.18(b).

This raises a question as to who is a “prospective client?” Rule 1.18 of the Indiana Rules of Professional Conduct states that a “person who discusses with a lawyer the possibility of forming a client-lawyer relationship with respect to a matter is a prospective client.” However, “a person who communicates information unilaterally to a lawyer, without any reasonable expectation that the lawyer is willing to discuss the possibility of forming a client-lawyer relationship, is not a ‘prospective client’ within the meaning of paragraph (a).” Prof. Cond. R. 1.18, cmt. [2].

Therefore, when an individual wishes to discuss the possible formation of a client-lawyer relationship, that person is a prospective client and is entitled to these discussions being kept confidential. With regard to firm websites, if clients are first communicating with you by clicking on your email address from your webpage, you should consider having appropriate disclaimers in place to dissuade those prospective clients from sharing confidential information with you until you believe an attorney-client relationship is a possibility. This practice could also help avoid issues with conflicts of interest.

3. Train staff regarding confidentiality.

Finally, we need to educate those who we supervise regarding the breadth of confidentiality. For example, Rule 5.3(a) of the Indiana Rules of Professional Conduct states that lawyers with managerial authority “shall make reasonable efforts to ensure that the firm has in effect measures giving reasonable assurance that [a non-lawyer assistant’s] conduct is compatible with the professional obligations of the lawyer.” A similar rule exists for lawyers who we supervise.

If a co-worker tweets, blogs or otherwise reveals information related to a case, that person’s supervisor may not have violated Rule 1.6, but may have violated the rules pertaining to supervision. Therefore, you may want to consider starting off next year with a quick, but well-documented, meeting with your staff to discuss the duty of confidentiality and other ethical obligations of the firm.•


James J. Bell and K. Michael Gaerte are attorneys with Bingham Greenebaum Doll LLP. They assist lawyers and judges with professional liability and legal ethics issues. They also practice in criminal defense and are regular speakers on criminal defense and ethics topics. They can be reached at or The opinions expressed are those of the authors.


Post a comment to this story

We reserve the right to remove any post that we feel is obscene, profane, vulgar, racist, sexually explicit, abusive, or hateful.
You are legally responsible for what you post and your anonymity is not guaranteed.
Posts that insult, defame, threaten, harass or abuse other readers or people mentioned in Indiana Lawyer editorial content are also subject to removal. Please respect the privacy of individuals and refrain from posting personal information.
No solicitations, spamming or advertisements are allowed. Readers may post links to other informational websites that are relevant to the topic at hand, but please do not link to objectionable material.
We may remove messages that are unrelated to the topic, encourage illegal activity, use all capital letters or are unreadable.

Messages that are flagged by readers as objectionable will be reviewed and may or may not be removed. Please do not flag a post simply because you disagree with it.

Sponsored by
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. This state's high court has spoken, the fair question is answered. Years ago the Seventh Circuit footnoted the following in the context of court access: "[2] Dr. Bowman's report specifically stated that Brown "firmly believes he is obligated as a Christian to put obedience to God's laws above human laws." Dr. Bowman further noted that Brown expressed "devaluing attitudes towards pharmacological or psycho-therapeutic mental health treatment" and that he made "sarcastic remarks devaluing authority of all types, especially mental health authority and the abortion industry." 668 F.3d 437 (2012) SUCH acid testing of statist orthodoxy is just and meet in Indiana. SUCH INQUISITIONS have been green lighted. Christians and conservatives beware.

  2. It was all that kept us from tyranny. So sad that so few among the elite cared enough to guard the sacred trust. Nobody has a more sacred obligation to obey the law than those who make the law. Sophocles No man is above the law and no man is below it; nor do we ask any man's permission when we ask him to obey it. Obedience to the law is demanded as a right; not asked as a favor. Theodore Roosevelt That was the ideal ... here is the Hoosier reality: The King can do no wrong. Legal maxim From the Latin 'Rex non potest peccare'. When the President does it, that means that it is not illegal. Richard Nixon

  3. So men who think they are girls at heart can use the lady's potty? Usually the longer line is for the women's loo, so, the ladies may be the ones to experience temporary gender dysphoria, who knows? Is it ok to joke about his or is that hate? I may need a brainwash too, hey! I may just object to my own comment, later, if I get myself properly "oriented"

  4. Heritage, what Heritage? The New Age is dawning .... an experiment in disordered liberty and social fragmentation is upon us .... "Carmel City Council approved a human rights ordinance with a 4-3 vote Monday night after hearing about two hours of divided public testimony. The ordinance bans discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation or gender identity, among other traits. Council members Rick Sharp, Carol Schleif, Sue Finkam and Ron Carter voted in favor of it. The three council members opposing it—Luci Snyder, Kevin Rider and Eric Seidensticker—all said they were against any form of discrimination, but had issues with the wording and possible unintended consequences of the proposal." Kardashian is the new Black.

  5. Can anyone please tell me if anyone is appealing the law that certain sex offenders can't be on school property. How is somebody supposed to watch their children's sports games or graduations, this law needs revised such as sex offenders that are on school property must have another non-offender adult with them at all times while on school property. That they must go to the event and then leave directly afterwards. This is only going to hurt the children of the offenders and the father/ son mother/ daughter vice versa relationship. Please email me and let me know if there is a group that is appealing this for reasons other than voting and religion. Thank you.