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

Employment Law Observer
Aug 10, 2026
As Leaves Fall, Leave Requests Rise: Are You Compliant With Chicago’s Expanded Rules?

Press Release
Aug 7, 2026
Daniel McGrath Re-Elected Senior Director of the Federation of Defense & Corporate Counsel

Insights for Insurers Alert
Aug 7, 2026
California Supreme Court Clarifies Pleading Standards for Excess Policy Claims

Press Release
Aug 6, 2026
Charles Townsend Named a Best Mentor Finalist in the 2026 ALM Texas Legal Awards

Webinar
Aug 5, 2026
April Toy Moderates HNBA Webinar on AI in the Practice of Law

Privacy, Cyber & AI Decoded Alert
Aug 5, 2026
2026 AI Compliance: Upcoming Laws Every Organization Needs to Know

Press Release
July 21, 2026 | Updated on August 4, 2026
Three Hinshaw Attorneys Named to the 2026 National Black Lawyers’ Top 40 Under 40 List

Healthcare Alert
Aug 3, 2026
Fixing the Emergency Refill Trap: What California’s AB 1587 Means for Pharmacies

Consumer Crossroads: Where Financial Services and Litigation Intersect
Jul 30, 2026
Should Text Messages be Considered “Calls” Under the TCPA? The Seventh Circuit Says No

Healthcare Alert
Jul 30, 2026
California Courts Sharply Curtail the MICRA Damages Cap in Nursing Home Litigation

Insights for Insurers Alert
Jul 30, 2026
Analyzing a Couple of Cases Involving Exclusions in D&O Policies

