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

In The News
Jul 16, 2026
Jennifer Driscoll Anticipates Epic Battle Between “Titans of the Antitrust Bar”

Press Release
Jul 15, 2026
Two Hinshaw Partners Recognized in Minnesota Monthly's 2026 Top Lawyers in Minnesota

Event
July 13-15, 2026
Hinshaw Proudly Sponsors 2026 Lavender Law Conference and Career Fair

Webinar
Jul 14, 2026
Scott Seaman Presents on Horizontal vs. Vertical Exhaustion of Insurance

Healthcare Alert
Jul 8, 2026
A New Era of Compliance Standards for California DSOs and MSOs After the Aspen Dental Settlement

Insights for Insurers Alert
Jul 7, 2026
What Insurers Need to Know About California’s FAIR Plan Assessment Recoupment Guidance

In The News
Jul 6, 2026
Francesco Palanda’s Practical Guide for Mitigating AI-Related Business Interruption Risk

Lawyers' Lawyer Newsletter
Jun 29, 2026
Beyond Malpractice: The Rising Threat of Privacy and Statutory Claims Against Lawyers



