[textbook]Traversing the Ethical Minefield Problems, Law, and Professional Responsibility by Susan R. Martyn (z-lib.org)(1) (1)

Chapter 7
Confidentiality Exceptions: Physical and Financial Injury
Exceptions to confidentiality have coexisted with the obligation since its inception. If the
rationales that support the obligation of confidentiality make sense, then the same policies
should justify exceptions to the obligation. In other words, if preserving confidentiality
promotes efficient functioning of the legal system, exceptions can be justified to promote
effective operation of the system of justice. Similarly, if preserving client confidences is
deemed important to promote trust or privacy in the client-lawyer relationship, exceptions
can be justified where preserving client confidences creates a breach of trust or fosters
misuse of the relationship to violate other legal norms. As you work your way through the
next two chapters, consider whether these justifications explain each exception. Consider
further whether the addition of new exceptions has compromised the original rationales for
confidentiality.
A. Physical Harm
Confidentiality seems less important when another human imperative, such as life itself, is
at stake. Lawyers guarantee confidentiality in part to encourage clients to blow off steam,
which affords lawyers an opportunity to counsel clients to abstain from vigilante justice. If
this fails, a lawyer is justified in disclosing client confidences to promote the greater good of
preserving human life and preventing injurious behavior. John Stuart Mill, a prominent
utilitarian, asserted that “[a]s soon as any part of a person’s conduct affects prejudicially the
interests of others, society has jurisdiction over it.” 1 The deontologist would reason that a
client who wishes to use the relationship with her lawyer to harm someone else is misusing
a trusting relationship and therefore forfeits the client’s right to trust or privacy.
1. Fiduciary Duty Model Rule 1.6(b)(1) RLGL §§ 59, 66
Hawkins v. King County
602 P.2d 361 (Wash. App. 1979)
SWANSON, A.C.J.
Michael Hawkins, acting through his guardian ad litem, and his mother Frances M.
Hawkins, appeal from a summary judgment dismissing attorney Richard Sanders from an
action sounding in tort. Appellants contend Sanders, court appointed defense attorney for
Michael Hawkins, was negligent and committed malpractice by failing to divulge
189