Opinion ID: 2209446
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: Withdrawal from Representation

Text: We lastly turn to the Board's findings that respondent violated Rules of Professional Conduct governing an attorney's withdrawal from representation. We first address the Board's conclusion that respondent violated Rule 1.16(d): In connection with any termination of representation, a lawyer shall take timely steps to the extent reasonably practicable to protect a client's interests, such as . . . surrendering papers and property to which the client is entitled . . . . [20] The evidence showed that Littlewood, after she ended her relationship with respondent, requested the names of persons who had agreed to join the class action or had expressed an interest. Respondent refused to provide this information. Soon thereafter, respondent agreed as part of the Settlement Agreement not to reveal any facts, legal theories, names of persons or potential lay or expert witnesses or any other information . . . obtained . . . as a result of [his] work in relation to the Litigation. No clients apparently requested any of this information from respondent after the Settlement Agreement was executed. We agree with the Board that respondent's conduct violated Rule 1.16(d). This rule unambiguously requires an attorney to surrender a client's file upon termination of the representation. Bernstein, supra, 707 A.2d at 375. Respondent's promise to Warner-Lambert to do exactly the opposite significantly impaired his clients' ability to pursue their claims after the representation ended, thus working the very hardship the Rule is designed to protect against. That no clients were in fact denied their files after respondent executed the Settlement Agreement is not determinative. See In re Landesberg, 518 A.2d 96, 101 (D.C.1986) (per curiam) (Appendix, Board Report) (It is settled law that, while lack of prejudice may affect sanction, it has no bearing on the question of violation.). Respondent's refusal to disclose the client names to Littlewood presents a greater difficulty. Disclosure of a client's identity falls within the scope of Rule 1.6(a)(1): a lawyer shall not knowingly reveal a confidence or secret of the lawyer's client. The D.C. Bar Committee on Legal Ethics has held that Rule 1.6(a) applies whenever a client requests nondisclosure of the fact of representation, or circumstances suggest that such disclosure would embarrass or detrimentally affect any client. D.C. Bar Opinion 124; see also R. 1.6(b) (`[S]ecret' refers to . . . information gained in the professional relationship that the client has requested be held inviolate, or the disclosure of which would be embarrassing, or would be likely to be detrimental, to the client.). In rejecting respondent's confidentiality argument, the Board focused only on the clients' failure to request nondisclosure of their names. The clients agreed in the Contingent Fee Agreement to be named by the attorneys as class representatives in litigation against Warner-Lambert filed in federal court. The clients had no reason to think that their identities would be secret. While we concur, we believe this reasoning does not address respondent's argument that disclosure would detrimentally affect his other clients because they would not reap the benefits of the (future) Settlement Agreement. As should be clear by now, any argument that relies upon the virtues of the Settlement Agreement and the need to protect its integrity is a dubious one at best. Furthermore, given their expressed interest in pursuing class action litigation against Warner-Lambert, the other clients may very well have wished for Littlewood to contact them and provide them an alternative to respondent's advocacy efforts. Nevertheless, given the tension between Rule 1.6(a) and Rule 1.16(d), the difficulties in determining whether the other clients would have chosen to disclose their names rather than participate in the Settlement Agreement, and the obviousness of the other Rule 1.16(d) violation, we see no need to decide whether multiple violations of this Rule occurred. The Board finally determined that respondent violated Rule 1.16(a), which requires that a lawyer withdraw from representation if it will result in violation of the Rules of Professional Conduct. We agree with the Board that respondent violated this Rule by continuing to represent his clients while negotiating a secret fee agreement with Warner-Lambert that violated multiple Rules of Professional Conduct.