Email Violated Duty Of Confidentiality

The Minnesota Supreme Court has affirmed a private admonition for a confidentiality violation

In this case, appellant, a Minnesota attorney, contests a private admonition issued by a panel of the Lawyers Professional Responsibility Board (Panel) for disclosing confidential communications with a former client, in violation of Minn. R. Prof. Conduct 1.9(c)(2). Appellant contends that he did not disclose confidential communications with a former client and that the decisions of an individual board member of the Lawyers Professional Responsibility Board and the Panel were inadequately explained, in violation of Rule 8(e), Rules on Lawyers Professional Responsibility (RLPR). We conclude that the Panel’s finding that appellant disclosed confidential communications with a former client, in violation of Minn. R. Prof. Conduct 1.9(c)(2), was not clearly erroneous and that the appropriate disposition for this misconduct is a private admonition. We further conclude that the decisions of both the individual board member and the Panel were adequately explained. We therefore affirm the private admonition.

The attorney represented the client in an accident claim. After he was terminated, he sent this email to the insurance adjuster

I was notified my [sic] [client] yesterday that he is terminating my representation and that he is not accepting the settlement offer. He got upset apparently that Medicare is taking a while, as it always does, and now doesn’t want the settlement. I advised him that he already accepted it, there is no rescinding his acceptance. He is picking his file up today apparently. I’m going to send a lien for our fees and costs to you. I’m assuming you will be having legal bring a motion to enforce the settlement. He’s been advised of all of this. Sorry for the inconvenience but he is a very difficult client. Let me know if you have any questions.

 The client complained to the Bar that the disclosure hurt his case.

The court

Appellant concedes that his statement in the e-mail— that he had advised his client that the settlement offer had been accepted by the client and that “there is no rescinding his acceptance”—disclosed “information relating to the representation.” He also does not dispute that it reveals details of appellant’s confidential discussions with his client. Nevertheless, appellant contends that this disclosure does not violate Rule 1.9(c)(2) because it was not “that much of a revelation” and would not have “any conceivable effect on the client’s claim.” But nothing in the language of the rule limits the prohibition to significant revelations or contains a requirement that the improper disclosure prejudices a client. See Minn. R. Prof. Conduct 1.9(c)(2). As we have determined, the rules protecting client confidences oblige a lawyer to “maintain all client confidences, significant or insignificant.” Lennartson v. Anoka-Hennepin Indep. Sch. Dist. No. 11, 662 N.W.2d 125, 131 (Minn. 2003) (emphasis added). Accordingly, we conclude that the Panel did not clearly err by finding that appellant’s e-mail violated Minn. R. Prof. Conduct 1.9(c)(2).

The court concluded that the admonition was sufficient discipline because the breach was “isolated and nonserious.’

The cumulative weight of the misconduct is also minimal because it involved a single e-mail. Likewise, there was minimal, if any, harm to the client in this case. Because the only new information disclosed was that appellant had discussed these issues with the client, the insurance adjuster was not able to use the disclosure to the client’s disadvantage

Because the matter was concluded by private admonition, the attorney is not identified in the opinion. (Mike Frisch)