伦理意见299

Duty of Confidentiality to a Corporate Client That Has Ceased Operations

* [NOTE: 看到 how Opinion 299 has been substantively affected by the amendments to the D.C. 职业行为准则 that became effective on February 1, 2007]

The duty of confidentiality under 规则1.包括澳门赌场官网-客户保密特权，并在客户-澳门赌场官网关系终止后继续有效. Therefore, unless one of the exceptions to 规则1.6适用, 即使公司客户已停止经营，澳门赌场官网也必须保守客户的秘密.

适用的规则

• 规则1.6 (Confidentiality of Information)

调查

询问者向一家非营利性公司提供有关联邦政府合同的法律建议，该公司是根据该公司所在司法管辖区(不是哥伦比亚特区)的法律组织的。. 大约四年前, the inquirer terminated the representation of the corporation due to nonpayment of fees. Since then, the corporation has ceased operating, and its current legal status is unknown. 该公司的前官员已被起诉，罪名可能与询问者以前的代理范围内的事项有关. 代表一名被起诉的前警官的澳门赌场官网已与询问者联系，并要求提供与询问者的代理有关的资料, including matters that the inquirer believes are covered by the attorney-client privilege. 询问者要求我们就他对已停止经营的前公司客户的保密义务提出建议.

讨论

询问者告知我们，某公司客户前高管的澳门赌场官网寻求澳门赌场官网-客户特权所涵盖的信息，这是公认的最古老的保密通信特权之一. Swidler & 柏林v. 美国, 118 S. Ct. 2081, 2084(1998)，引用 Upjohn有限公司. v. 美国, 449 U.S. 383, 389 (1981); 亨特v. 布莱克本, 128 U.S. 464, 470 (1888). 这项特权旨在鼓励澳门赌场官网与其客户就令人尴尬或有损法律的信息进行充分和坦率的沟通，因为客户可以期望这些信息不会被披露. 看到约翰, 449 U.S. at 389. The privilege also applies when the client is a corporate entity. Id. at 391.

The principles underlying the attorney-client privilege are incorporated into 规则1.6, 哪条规定“澳门赌场官网不得故意泄露澳门赌场官网客户的机密或秘密”，除非在规则第(c)和(d)段所界定的某些情况下. “保密”是指根据适用法律受澳门赌场官网-当事人保密特权保护的信息. 规则1.6(b). “秘密”是指客户要求在业务关系中获得的其他信息不得侵犯或泄露会使其尴尬, or would be likely to be detrimental to the client.规则1.6(b). 在询问者对客户的代理终止后，询问者对客户保密的义务仍然存在.¹ 看到 规则1.6(f); Comment [28] to 规则1.6 ("The duty of confidentiality continues after the client-lawyer relationship has terminated"); D.C. 酒吧Op. 180(相同). 相应的, 除非属于规则1 (c)或(d)段规定的保密责任的例外情况之一.6 is applicable, the inquirer may not disclose the requested information. Cf. Swidler & 柏林, 118 S. Ct. at 2081 (generally the attorney-client privilege survives the death of the client). 规则1 (c)款.6 allows a lawyer to reveal a client's confidences or secrets, "在合理必要的范围内防止澳门赌场官网合理认为可能导致死亡或实质性身体伤害的犯罪行为"或"防止贿赂或恐吓"参与法庭诉讼的人员".“询问者没有向我们提供任何事实，表明这里存在这两种情况.

规则1 (d)款.6, 另一方面, 允许澳门赌场官网透露当事人的机密或秘密:“(1)经当事人同意, but only after full disclosure to the client," or (2) when permitted by another 酒吧 Rule or required by law or court order.² The inquirer informed us that the corporation (the former client) has ceased operations, but its legal status is unknown. 委员会无法根据调查中提出的有限事实确定该公司客户是否仍然存在，或是否有另一个实体接替其管理. 然而, we infer from the inquiry that the former officer, whose counsel contacted the inquirer, cannot consent to the disclosure of the client's confidences on behalf of the corporation because, even if he had such authority when the corporation was in operation, he no longer has any management authority as a former officer. If some entity has assumed managerial control of the corporation, the inquirer may reveal the requested information if the successor management consents. To obtain permission to disclose information, 询问者必须向继任管理层充分披露所有相关事实，使其能够就是否允许澳门赌场官网披露机密信息作出知情决定. 看,e.g.，马勒斯基诉. 公司生活. Co., 641 A.2d 1,3 (Pa. Commw. 1994), and cases cited therein (authority of successor management to act on corporation's behalf).³

即使公司客户已不复存在，也没有人被授权同意披露公司机密,⁴ 如果前任官员寻求并获得法院命令强制披露所寻求的信息，他或她仍可诉诸公司的机密信息. 看到 规则1.6(d)(2)(A). 当收到这样的命令时, the inquirer's duty of confidentiality to the client would be overridden by the order, and the inquirer may comply with the order. 看到 对规则1的注释[26].(6)“澳门赌场官网可遵守法院或其他有管辖权法庭要求澳门赌场官网提供客户资料的最后命令. 但是，被法院命令披露客户机密或秘密的澳门赌场官网，在亲自尽一切合理努力对该命令提出上诉或已将该命令通知客户并给予客户挑战该命令的机会之前，不应遵守该命令。”). 同样的, 前高级职员亦可向法院提出申请，委任公司的接管人或受托人，以决定是否行使公司同意披露的权利. 看到 上文关于规则1的讨论.6 (d)(1).

调查没有. 99-5-19
通过日期:2000年6月20日

1. 相应的, 如果调查涉及客户的“秘密”而不是“机密”，我们的分析也不会有什么不同.”
2. No other 酒吧 Rule apparently applies to the facts of this case. 同样的, the other exceptions in 规则1.6 (d)—(1) disclosure when the lawyer is responding to a criminal charge, 纪律负责, or civil claim; (2) disclosure when the lawyer believes that the client has given implicit authorization to carry out the representation; or (3) disclosure necessary to establish or collect a fee—are not applicable.
3. Such a result is consistent with 规则1.13, 哪个“说得很清楚, when a lawyer is retained to represent a corporation, the lawyer’s client is the corporation only, acting through its duly authorized constituents (such as officers and employees).” D.C. 酒吧Op. 269 (italics in original and footnote omitted).
4. 参见Maleski, 641 A.2d at 1; see also FDIC v. 阿蒙森，682 F. 增刊. 981 (D. 明尼苏达州. 1988) (dissolved corporation ceases to exist and no entity retains management authority to act on its behalf); FDIC v. 麦卡蒂，124楼.R.D. 662 (D. 菅直人. 1988)(相同).