I Still Haven’t Found What I’m Looking For

Rule 1.05 of the Texas Disciplinary Rules of Professional Conduct states:

(a) Confidential information includes both privileged information and unprivileged client information . . . Unprivileged client information means all information relating to a client or furnished by the client, other than privileged information, acquired by the lawyer during the course of or by reason of the representation of the client.

(b) Except as permitted by paragraphs (c) and (d), or as required by paragraphs (e), and (f), a lawyer shall not knowingly:

(1) Reveal confidential information of a client or a former client to:

(i) a person that the client has instructed is not to receive the information; or

(ii) anyone else, other than the client, the clients representatives, or the members, associates, or employees of the lawyers law firm.

These obligations pertain to all lawyers, regardless of the entity in which they practice. So what happens when a legal non-profit solicits grants from organizations that contractually require disclosure of confidential client information to perform their due diligence?

In Ethics Opinion 695 (2022) the Professional Ethics Committee for the State Bar of Texas was asked whether an organization like ABC could solve this issue by having each client agree, in advance and after consultation during the intake process, to allow that organization to reveal confidential information to the funding entity. The Opinion basically found that the proper solution was to structure the disclosure of information such that the monitoring responsibilities of the grantor and the confidentiality obligations of the legal services grantee could both be honored:

Legal services agencies may disclose general information to funding organizations and monitors if the information does not reveal the identity of clients or other information that might harm or disadvantage a client if disclosed. For example, an agency may provide basic eligibility information in an anonymous format (e.g., linked to unique client identification codes rather than client names), on an aggregated basis, or by some other method that does not disclose client identity or associate a specific client with specific eligibility information.

The Opinion cites the Professional Ethics Committee for the State Bar of Michigan’s analysis in considering the same issue in Mich. Ethics Opinion RI-210 (1994):

. . . The tension here is then between the governing bodies [’] “need to know” and the lawyer's duty of confidentiality. An appropriate balance between these competing concerns is obtained by granting access to certain kinds of basic statistical data concerning the operations of the program. For example, statistical data may be compiled regarding matters such as numbers of clients served, numbers of cases processed, kinds of cases processed, time spent on cases, etc. In addition, limited information regarding the handling of specific matters may be disclosed, provided that the client is in no way identified or identifiable from such limited disclosure.

As for whether client consent under Rule 1.05 could ever be effective when given in advance of the client representation, the Opinion is decidedly skeptical:

[a]although the issue of effective consent normally presents a fact question that depends on the circumstances, consent obtained during an intake process is likely ineffective because a lawyer cannot provide meaningful consultation regarding the consequences of consent before knowing the particular facts and legal issues involved in the proposed representation of the client.

However, the Opinion did acknowledge that such information could be disclosed after the request was made by a funding organization and when the client consents after consultation in accordance with Rule 1.05(c)(2).

The correct answer is G.