D.C. Bar Clarifies Boundaries for Disclosure of Client Confidences by Discharged In-House Counsel
Lawyers for the Profession® Alert
Lawyers for the Profession® Alert | 1 min read
Nov 28, 2012
D.C. Bar Association Legal Ethics Committee, Ethics Opinion 363
Brief Summary
The District of Columbia Bar Association Legal Ethics Committee (Committee) opined that in-house lawyers who sue their employers for employment discrimination or retaliatory discharge may not reveal client/employer confidences offensively in that context, but may reveal confidences, as reasonably necessary, defensively (i.e., in response to the employer’s affirmative defenses or counterclaims).
Complete Summary
The Committee was asked whether a discharged in-house lawyer may disclose employer/client confidences or secrets in his or her employment discrimination or retaliatory discharge case. The Committee generally opined that such lawyers may use client confidences defensively but not offensively.
Under D.C. R. Prof’l Conduct 1.6(e)(3) a lawyer may reveal client confidences “to the extent reasonably necessary to establish a defense to a criminal charge, disciplinary charge, or civil claim, formally instituted against the lawyer.” The Committee concluded that the rule prohibits use of employer/client secrets or confidences in support of an employment-related claim, but that a lawyer may reveal such information (to the extent reasonably necessary) in response to the employer’s affirmative defenses or counterclaims.
The Committee further opined that such lawyers are not prohibited from bringing employment discrimination or retaliatory discharge suits merely because an employer/client might perceive the need to assert confidential information in defense of such a suit.
Finally, the Committee expressed no opinion as to whether Rule 1.6(e)(3) could be preempted by certain employment discrimination or retaliatory discharge laws in certain circumstances.
Significance of Opinion
This opinion highlights a key difference between D.C. R. Prof’l Conduct 1.6 and many other jurisdictions’ confidentiality rules. For example, Model R. Prof’l Conduct 1.6(b)(5) generally allows both the offensive and defensive use of client confidences in disputes between lawyer and client.
For Related Authorities See
This alert has been prepared by Hinshaw & Culbertson LLP to provide information on recent legal developments of interest to our readers. It is not intended to provide legal advice for a specific situation or to create an attorney-client relationship.
Related Capabilities
Featured Insights

Press Release
Sep 18, 2026
Paris Glazer Named to Chicago Daily Law Bulletin’s 2026 40 Attorneys Under Forty

Consumer Crossroads: Where Financial Services and Litigation Intersect
Sep 17, 2026
Federal and State Regulators Continue Crackdown on Junk Fees

Press Release
Sep 17, 2026
Defense Verdict Reduces $134 Million Demand to $2 Million in Catastrophic Motorcycle Injury Case

Insights for Insurers Alert
Sep 16, 2026
America 250: The Nation’s Unique Contributions to Insurance Coverage Law and Litigation

In The News
Sep 15, 2026
Lucy Wang Discusses the California Insurance Commissioner’s Role in Protecting Consumers

Press Release
Sep 10, 2026
Hinshaw Attorneys Recognized as 2027 Lexology Index Thought Leaders: USA

In The News
Sep 10, 2026
Nicholas Ajello and Gregory Emry Analyze FAA’s Proposed BVLOS Drone Regulations

Consumer Crossroads: Where Financial Services and Litigation Intersect
Sep 9, 2026
“Play Now, Arbitrate Later”—“Not So Fast,” Ninth Circuit Says

In The News
Sep 9, 2026
Jennifer Driscoll Discusses “Patchwork” of Laws Targeting Personalized Pricing

Employment Law Observer
Sep 8, 2026
Five Workplace Issues Every Employer Should Address Before They Become a Costly Lawsuit

Press Release
Sep 8, 2026
Jim Sandy Appointed Chair of ABA Debt Collection and Bankruptcy Subcommittee

