In Ethics Seminar, Lawyers Say They’d Report A Client For Legally Owning A Gun

[MechAg94]

https://thefederalist.com/2019/05/02/ethics-seminar-lawyers-say-theyd-report-client-legally-owning-gun/#.XMxEOjMyC48.twitter
In Ethics Seminar, Lawyers Say They’d Report A Client For Legally Owning A Gun

I suggest reading to first part of the article to understand what question was asked.  Essential, the lawyer is representing a man who was wrongfully fired.  While the case is in progress, the man started protesting with signs near his former place of employment.  He has a concealed carry permit, but no history of violence or metal issues.  What is the lawyer to do once he finds out his client is protesting?

While I was forming an answer, many lawyers immediately said they would terminate the attorney-client relationship and contact law enforcement to report their client was potentially dangerous. The only reason offered was his firearm permits.

I have to admit, I was flabbergasted, for several reasons. First, I live in Mississippi, which is among the reddest of the red states. Second, the attorneys—let me call them gun-phobic—were proposing to violate the attorney-client privilege, which establishes one of the most sacrosanct confidential relationships. (American Bar Association “Rule of Professional Conduct” 1.6). As with most things, there are exceptions. They generally pertain to a client who is about to commit a criminal act or engage in fraudulent behavior.

The lawyers who proposed to call the police cited ABA Rule 1.6 (b)(1). It states “[a] lawyer may reveal information relating to the representation of a client to the extent the lawyer reasonably believes necessary: … to prevent reasonably certain death or substantial bodily harm.”

I would think this would open up a lawyer to liability or disbarment due to violation of attorney client privilege.  Without more background or a more credible threat, the lawyers were equating gun possession/ownership with being violent/threatening.  Lawyers shouldn't be that stupid and a judge should smack them down hard.  However, since other lawyers would be involved both in court and with the Bar Association, I don't know how difficult that would be.  Considering some of the horrible rulings we have seen in the effort to stop President Trump, I would be worried.  

[230RN]

They're sniping at us from every tree in the jungle.

For decades, they've stored up every choke-point method they could think of, including by attacking financial institutions dealing with firearms and corrupting social media, and are now unleashing them all at once.

Lawyer ethics has nothing to do with it. The extent of the "privilege" depends on the lawyer's views anyhow.

Sniping.  And It's the cumulative PR impact of innumerable things like this that counts. 

This country is cutting off its own balls.

Terry, 230RN

[MillCreek]

Since I let my license lapse, it has been a long time since I have done any ethics CLE, but I would need a lot more than that to report a client to the cops.  I think the scenario posed here represents a breach of privilege, and as such could be actionable.

I do report patients to law enforcement when they pose a danger to themselves or others, but that has to be tangible evidence of intent or an overt act before my Tarasoff obligations are triggered, and I am the organization's risk manager, not the patient's attorney.   

[BlueStarLizzard]

They're sniping at us from every tree in the jungle.

For decades, they've stored up every choke-point method they could think of, including by attacking financial institutions dealing with firearms and corrupting social media, and are now unleashing them all at once.

Lawyer ethics has nothing to do with it. The extent of the "privilege" depends on the lawyer's views anyhow.

Sniping.  And It's the cumulative PR impact of innumerable things like this that counts. 

This country is cutting off its own balls.

Terry, 230RN

You forgot the AMA.


We have reached the point where the possession of an object is equated with intent.

On a side note, it makes you think twice about the precedent of laws regarding possession of drug paraphernalia...

[T.O.M.]

Need to remember that whole lot of lawyers are fiscally conservative, socially liberal, and culturally delusional.  Many have money and a laisse faire approach to economics and taxation.  They are socially liberal, as in many ways this best helps their business.  Example is gay marriage.  Most lawyers I know were completely in support of it.  Why?  Gay marriage equals gay divorce, which means more money in the lawyer's pocket.  And the cultural delusional?  Lawyers really think that they are indispensable in this world, and can solve all of the world's problems with lawsuits.  I've heard lawyers say that if there were only good litigators in Venezuela,  there would be no violence.  In the mind of too many lawyers, a good cause of action is more effective than a firearm at dealing with problems like tyranny.   They forget or ignore that tyrants use guns to set aside court rulings with impunity, and there's no appeal from a 7.62 round.

[bedlamite]

The type of person that would use a gun after being wrongfully fired is not the type that would acquire the services of an attorney.

Would reporting a client to the police like this be a violation of fiduciary duty?

[Hawkmoon]

So a lawyer would defend a person against a murder charge, in theory even if the defendant admits to his lawyer that he committed the murder, and the lawyer would not tell the court his client is guilty because of attorney-client privilege. But a client says he's angry that he was fired and the lawyer finds out the client owns a gun, so the lawyer resigns from the case AND blows the whistle on the client?

There's a major example of a logical disconnect in there somewhere.

[Firethorn]

So a lawyer would defend a person against a murder charge, in theory even if the defendant admits to his lawyer that he committed the murder, and the lawyer would not tell the court his client is guilty because of attorney-client privilege. But a client says he's angry that he was fired and the lawyer finds out the client owns a gun, so the lawyer resigns from the case AND blows the whistle on the client?

There's a major example of a logical disconnect in there somewhere.

Lawyers normally specialize. These lawyers would likely be civil specialized and this not used to actually dangerous clients.

That said, I think the seminar should be using this as a teaching opportunity to tell the lawyers that their impulse could/ would get them sued and quite possibly disbarred.