Opinion ID: 1122740
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: Breach of the Confidential Attorney-Client Relationship

Text: It is undisputed that after representation of the client had ceased, Burk filed an affidavit in the action of Linda Sue Irvine v. R.F. Crotteau, Lawrence Burzynski, and Park Developments Ltd. a Wyoming limited corporation, Civil Action No. 52493 in the District Court, Seventh Judicial District, Natrona County, State of Wyoming. In the affidavit, Burk stated that Burzynski had transferred real property to his stepdaughter, R.F. Crotteau, to avoid his creditors. The record reveals, however, that Burzynski himself made the same statement to Linda Irvine, who filed an affidavit a month earlier than the Burk affidavit. In addition, Burk testified that he received the information from public records and sources other than his client. The Code of Professional Responsibility, DR 4-101, provides in pertinent part: Preservation of Confidences and Secrets of a Client. (A) `Confidence' refers to information protected by the attorney-client privilege under applicable law, and `secret' refers to other 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. (B) Except when permitted under DR 4-101(C) [not applicable in the present case], a lawyer shall not knowingly: (1) Reveal a confidence or secret of his client; (2) Use a confidence or secret of his client to the disadvantage of the client; (3) Use a confidence or secret of his client for the advantage of himself or of a third person, unless the client consents after full disclosure;    Defendants contend that Burk violated his ethical obligation to guard the secrets and confidences of his client. [6] This ethical precept, in contrast to the evidentiary attorney-client privilege, exists without regard to the source of the information or the fact that others share the knowledge and continues after termination of the employment relationship. Code of Professional Responsibility, EC 4-4 and EC 4-6. It appears that Burk, by submitting in a civil action an affidavit which was detrimental to Burzynski, violated his ethical duty to refrain from revealing secrets concerning his former client. We believe, however, that Burzynski, by revealing the damaging information to others, waived any right he may have had to withhold payment of legal fees. We do not hold that an attorney may disclose confidences and secrets of his client with impunity and still expect to recover his fees. We merely hold that recovery is not barred in this case, where the client himself revealed the same information that his attorney subsequently revealed and where the client's disclosure resulted in an affidavit duplicative of the one filed by the attorney. Counsel for the defendants cite to us a number of cases in support of their contention that an attorney who breaches his ethical duties to his client will be denied recovery of fees. These cases are readily distinguishable from the instant situation on their facts. In In re Thomasson's Estate, 355 Mo. 274, 196 S.W.2d 155, 162, 170 A.L.R. 1170 (1946), the Missouri Supreme Court denied recovery of fees where the attorney was involved in an unlawful conspiracy to obtain his client's property by fraud, undue influence, force and duress. The Pennsylvania Supreme Court in Duffy v. Colonial Trust Co., 287 Pa. 348, 135 A. 204, 205, 49 A.L.R. 406 (1926), determined that an attorney, who attempted to obtain a continuance by suggesting that a material witness feign illness, acted in bad faith toward the court as well as toward his client. Had the client known of such conduct, it would have had a duty to discharge the attorney. Therefore, recovery of legal fees was denied. In oral argument, counsel for defendants relied on Goldstein v. Lees, 120 Cal. Rptr. 253, 254, 46 Cal. App.3d 614 (1975). In that case, a former corporate attorney, who held confidences and secrets of the corporation, entered into a contract to provide legal services on behalf of a minority shareholder and director in a proxy fight designed to gain control of the same corporation. The California Court of Appeals held that, under the circumstances, the contract was void for reasons of public policy. In another case cited to us by defendants, the court awarded the attorney reasonable compensation even though the employment contract was champertous and against public policy, Donaldson v. Eaton & Estes, 136 Iowa 650, 114 N.W. 19, 21 (1907). Finally, in a recent California case, the court permitted an attorney to recover fees for his services rendered up to the point at which a conflict of interest developed, Jeffry v. Pounds, 136 Cal. Rptr. 373, 376-377, 67 Cal. App.3d 6 (1977). We conclude that the foregoing cases, involving voidable employment contracts, fraud, and conflict of interest, do not adequately address the attorney's revelation of a client's secret following disclosure by the client. Therefore, these cases will not control our decision here.