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

Webinar
Apr 29, 2026
When a Cyber Breach Hits: Cybersecurity, Privacy, and Compliance

In The News
Apr 24, 2026
Michael Dowell Reviews New PBM Reform Reshaping Pharmacy Reimbursement

Lawyers for the Profession® Alert
Apr 21, 2026
When Does a Client’s Duty to Investigate Begin? Lessons from a Time-Barred Malpractice Case

Press Release
Apr 20, 2026
Tom Kuzmanovic Selected for BizTimes Milwaukee 2026 Notable Leaders in Law

Press Release
Apr 17, 2026
André Sesler Elected to the Board of Trustees of the University of Florida Law Center Association

Hinshaw Alert
Apr 17, 2026
Q&A: How to Submit Your IEEPA Refund Claim as CAPE Portal Launches April 20, 2026

In The News
Apr 14, 2026
Bloomberg Law Recaps Panels Presented at Hinshaw's 25th Anniversary LMRM Conference

In The News
Apr 14, 2026
Michael Dowell Discusses the Uncertain Impact of Growing Medicare Advantage Scrutiny

Privacy, Cyber & AI Decoded Alert
Apr 9, 2026
6 Key Takeaways From the IAPP 2026 Global Summit for Privacy Compliance Professionals



