Ethics

George Conk reports that the New Jersey Supreme Court?s Professional Responsibility Rules Committee is seeking advice on whether to adopt an unusual exception to Rule 1.6, which exists only in Massachusetts and Alaska.  The exception permits lawyers to disclose confidential information to prevent the wrongful execution or incarceration of another.

There is no evidence from Massachusetts that this exception has caused any adverse effects, such as reduced client communications.  Of course, one might argue that we can't know for sure whether there has been such an effect because clients wouldn't necessarily tell their lawyers that they are refusing to talk because of the exception's existence.  The clients would simply not talk. That said, I have trouble believing that the clients who might trigger this exception are aware of the exception's existence, so I am highly skeptical that the exception, which would only be triggered in unusual circumstances, is causing harm to the attorney-client relationship. 

Given that the exception would prevent serious injustices (such as these) and given that there is no reason to believe that the exception causes any harm, I'd vote for the exception. How about you?

Click HERE to take the one question survey on this issue and to see how others have voted.

Results here.