Skip to main content

Rule 1.6 Confidentiality of Information

Client-Lawyer Relationship

(a) A lawyer shall not reveal confidential information relating to the representation of a client unless the client gives informed consent, the disclosure is impliedly authorized in order to carry out the representation or the disclosure is permitted by paragraph (b).

(b) A lawyer may reveal such information to the extent the lawyer reasonably believes necessary:

(1) to prevent the client from committing a criminal act;

(2) to prevent the client from committing a fraud that is reasonably certain to result in substantial injury to the financial interests or property of another and in furtherance of which the client has used or is using the lawyer’s services;

(3) to prevent, mitigate or rectify substantial injury to the financial interests or property of another that is reasonably certain to result or has resulted from the client’s commission of a crime or fraud in furtherance of which the client has used the lawyer’s services;

(4) to secure legal advice about the lawyer’s compliance with these Rules;

(5) to establish a claim or defense on behalf of the lawyer in a controversy between the lawyer and the client, to establish a defense to a criminal charge or civil claim against the lawyer based upon conduct in which the client was involved, or to respond to allegations in any proceeding concerning the lawyer’s representation of the client;

(6) to comply with other law or a court order;

(7) to detect and resolve conflicts of interest arising from the lawyer’s change of employment or from changes in the composition or ownership of a firm, but only if the revealed information would not compromise the attorney-client privilege or otherwise prejudice the client; or

(8) to protect the best interests of an individual when the lawyer has been appointed to act as a guardian ad litem.

(c) A lawyer shall make reasonable efforts to prevent the inadvertent or unauthorized disclosure of, or unauthorized access to, confidential information relating to the representation of a client.

Amendment history: Amended February 14, 2002, effective April 1, 2002; amended April 11, 2006, effective July 1, 2006; amended June 28, 2011, effective October 1, 2011; amended August 5, 2014, effective October 6, 2014; amended February 6, 2024, effective April 15, 2024. When lawyer-client conversations not confidential. — The confidentiality of conversations with counsel is not protected where the statements or communications made to the lawyer are made in the furtherance of criminal endeavor, as, for example, when the lawyer is a victim of threats against his family and property. Hopkinson v. State, 664 P.2d 43, 1983 Wyo. LEXIS 325 (Wyo.), cert. denied, 464 U.S. 908, 104 S. Ct. 262, 78 L. Ed. 2d 246 (U.S. 1983). Fee not barred when client also discloses information. — While an attorney may not disclose confidences and secrets of his client with impunity and still expect to recover his fees, recovery is not barred where the client himself reveals the same information that his attorney subsequently reveals and where the client’s disclosure results in an affidavit duplicative of one filed by the attorney. John Burk, P.C. v. Burzynski, 672 P.2d 419, 1983 Wyo. LEXIS 385 (Wyo. 1983). Civil liability for breach of fiduciary duty. — The fiduciary duties of confidentiality and loyalty an attorney owes to a former client embodied in Rules 1.6 and 1.9 are a codification of the common law, and a breach of those fiduciary duties owed to former clients gives rise to potential civil liability to the former client within the framework of a legal malpractice action. Bevan v. Fix, 2002 WY 43, 42 P.3d 1013, 2002 Wyo. LEXIS 46 (Wyo. 2002). Suspension proper. — Respondent was suspended from the practice of law in Wyoming for 60 days because the record contained clear and convincing evidence that she violated Wyo. R. Prof. Conduct 1.6 (Confidentiality of Information) and 3.3 (Candor Toward the Tribunal) as she revealed confidential information for which disclosure was not authorized based on two assertions in her motions to withdraw, i.e., statements about her client’s failure to cooperate with her and/or with discovery and that her client had contacted a realtor to sell the property in contravention of the stipulated order, and she made false assertions in her motions to withdraw. Bd. of Pro. Resp. v. Austin, 2023 WY 110, 538 P.3d 653, 2023 Wyo. LEXIS 112 (Wyo. 2023).