16. Confidential Information
(1951)

(Washington State Bar News Editor's Note: A lawyer wrote the Committee asking for its opinion as to whether he could use information obtained from one client to aid him in recovering a fee from another client. The facts were that he was suing client "A" for a fee when he learned from client "B" that "B" had possession of funds belonging to "A." The lawyer wished to garnish "B" and sought the Committee's opinion of the propriety of this procedure. The Committee's opinion is too long for us to set forth in full here. It relies on Opinion No. 250 of the American Bar Association's Committee on Professional Ethics. It cites Canon 37 of the Canons of Ethics, Healy v. Gray, 184 Iowa 111,168 N. W. 222; 2 Mechem on Agency (2d ed.) §2297, §2313; 5 Jones on Evidence (2d ed.) §2165; 1 Thornton on Attorneys, §127; Weeks on Attorneys (2d ed.) §152; and several cases. It concludes as follows, first quoting the last two paragraphs of ABA Opinion No. 250):

"Here, the lawyer is seeking to obtain payment of his fees. If grounds for attachment exists and use of confidential information as to the client's property is reasonably necessary to compel the client to respond to the lawyer's just claim for a fee, then we are of the opinion that the lawyer is not inhibited by the canon from using or disclosing such information, since such disclosure is necessary to enable the lawyer to obtain his rights. The client should not be permitted to take advantage of the rule to defeat the just rights of the lawyer growing out of the lawyer-client relation.

"Ours is a learned profession, not a mere money-getting trade. (See Canon 12.) Suits to collect fees should be avoided. Only where the circumstances imperatively require, should resort be had to a suit to compel payment. And where a lawyer does resort to a suit to enforce payment of fees which involves a disclosure, he should carefully avoid any disclosure not clearly necessary to obtaining or defending his rights."

The information you received which induced you to garnish "B" was information you received from "B." It was in no way confidential information you received from "A."

Opinion 250 makes an exception of information received from a client being confidential where an attorney is required to sue for his fee.

There can be no question that you were fully justified in bringing the action for your fee, under the circumstances you set out in your letter.