Disclosing client information on Facebook has gotten yet another lawyer in trouble. A Massachusetts attorney was publicly reprimanded earlier this month for posting details of a guardianship case on the social media site, in violation of the Bay State’s version of Model Rule 1.6 (“Confidentiality of Information”). The Board imposed a public reprimand, rejecting an
Search public
Settlement agreements barring use of public info nixed in ethics opinion
After hard-fought proceedings, you’ve finally settled a contentious case on behalf of your client. The plaintiff’s lawyer has brought suit against your client before, and likely will again: the lawyer advertises and uses social media aggressively to locate claimants who have the same kind of issue with your client.
Your client asks, “Can’t we include…
Watch those hypotheticals, says ABA in new opinion on blogs, tweets, “public commentary”
We’ve written before about the breadth of the duty of confidentiality we owe to our clients, and how it even extends to matters that you think are safe to discuss because they are of “public record.” (See here and here.) Now comes the ABA’s latest on the subject of lawyer “public commentary” — Formal…
CA Supreme Court rules against “categorical” privilege for public agency legal bills
In late December, a sharply divided California Supreme Court ruled that legal-fee bills in closed cases aren’t necessarily covered by attorney-client privilege. Although the case involved a discovery demand sent to a government entity under the state’s public records act, some lawyers have questioned (sub. req.) how far the privilege limitations might go.…
Lawyers can’t necessarily disclose former client info, even if it’s “publicly available”
You’re chatting with your pals at the bar association cocktail hour, and talk turns to the indictment just handed down against a former city official. Someone says, “Hey, didn’t your firm used to represent her?” “Yes,” you reply, “and a couple years ago, I had a really interesting case involving her. Maybe I shouldn’t discuss…
Your AI Chats Aren’t Privileged: A Wake-Up Call for Legal Professionals
Think your conversations with ChatGPT or Claude are just between you and the machine? Think again.
A groundbreaking ruling out of New York just changed the game for anyone using AI tools to discuss legal matters. In United States v. Bradley Heppner, No. 25 Cr. 503 (S.D.N.Y.), Judge Rakoff of the Southern District of…
What Lawyers Owe Former Clients After Representation Ends
Overview
What’s worse than having a client go elsewhere, and then ask you to spend time helping your replacement? Yesterday (January 21, 2026), the American Bar Association’s Standing Committee on Ethics and Professional Responsibility issued Formal Opinion 520, clarifying the extent to which Model Rule 1.16(d) requires attorneys to convey information to a former…
Is Your AI Meeting Assistant an Ethics Violation Waiting to Happen?
AI transcription tools that record, transcribe, and summarize calls are attractive to lawyers and clients alike and are becoming ubiquitous in some circles. But lawyers must take care to use these tools ethically and avoid pitfalls that could compromise privilege and confidentiality. The New York City Bar Association’s Professional Ethics Committee recently issued Formal Opinion…
Farewell to 2025: Best Ethics Practices to Carry Forward into 2026
As we welcome 2026 with high hopes and new resolutions, let’s review some highlights from 2025 and consider practices that should be carried forward into the new year and those which should be left behind.
Ethics Opinions Issued in 2025
In Texas Ethics Opinion 701, the Professional Ethics Committee concluded that an attorney…
DC Bar Provides Ethics Guidance on Lawyers’ Agreements with Government Entities
The District of Columbia Bar recently issued Ethics Opinion 391, providing insight as to ethical issues lawyers and law firms should bear in mind when considering agreements with government entities. While the Opinion specifically analyzes the DC Rules of Professional Conduct, versions of the same three rules raised are found in nearly every state.