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

8-2. Martyn & Fox is dealing with several difficult clients:
(a) Client threatens to seek disqualification of Martyn & Fox in a litigated
matter. Fox, quite upset about the scurrilous charges, wants to strike back,
threatening Client that we will tell his wife about Client’s illegitimate child if Client
persists. Okay?
(b) Martyn & Fox want to sue to collect a fee. Can they disclose how difficult
and irresponsible the client was? How the client repeatedly lied to the other side in
negotiations?
(c) Martyn was appointed by a court to represent Defendant in a criminal case.
Defendant was convicted, and now wants to claim ineffective assistance of counsel
on appeal. Outraged, Martyn wants to provide the prosecutor with a sworn affidavit
detailing how outstanding she was. Okay?
B. Compliance with Law or Court Order: Physical Evidence Model Rules
1.6(b)(6), 3.4(a), 8.4(b) RLGL §§ 63, 86, 119
Legal obligations such as court orders, statutes, or procedural rules often require the
disclosure of confidential client information. Creating an exception to client confidentiality
when other law requires or allows such disclosure promotes the policy of that other law. At
the same time, allowing other legal obligations to trump client-lawyer confidentiality may
compromise a central justification for confidentiality, especially if the purpose of the other
law does not mirror another recognized exception in the Rules of Professional Conduct.
Utilitarians might debate the precise line to draw in creating an efficient and fair legal
system, but probably would agree that court orders and procedural rules should be obeyed
to promote the proper functioning of the courts. Some statutes, such as child and elder
abuse disclosure provisions, also could be justified if their purpose is to protect human
welfare and prevent harm. On the other hand, applying such statutes to lawyers could
undermine the very essence of the promise of confidentiality, particularly as to past
conduct. Similar arguments could be made about the law of fraud. Insofar as it prevents
unfair use of the market or the legal system, a lawyer could be justified in disclosing client
confidences to comply with the criminal or civil law of fraud. A deontologist would agree
that court rules or laws designed to protect basic human freedoms are important. When a
client seeks to infringe such an obligation, the client’s conduct is blameworthy, which
creates a valid reason for the lawyer to prevent such a misuse of others.
New York Penal Law (2016)
§ 205.50. Hindering Prosecution; Definition of Term
. . . [A] person “renders criminal assistance” when, with intent to prevent, hinder
or delay the discovery or apprehension of, or the lodging of a criminal charge against,
a person who he knows or believes has committed a crime or is being sought by law
235