In re Conry

Information that embarrasses the client falls within the scope of RPC 1.6(a), and is considered "revealed" even if there is a third party who possessed that information. Further, in order for disclosure to be protected under RPC 1.6(b)(4), the attorney must have "reasonably believe[d] [it] necessary."

Conry appealed from a decision of a trial panel of the Oregon State Bar's Disciplinary Board that suspended him for 30 days for having violated Rule of Professional Conduct (RPC) 1.6. On appeal, Conry argued that the information he disclosed was not within the scope of the rule and that he was privileged to disclose it under RPC 1.6(b)(4). In response, the Bar argued that the information constituted "information relating to the representation of a client" and was embarrassing to the client. Further, the Bar argued that even if there was a controversy under RPC 1.6(b)(4), Conry revealed information that he could not have "reasonably believe[d] necessary" to establish his claim or defense. Information that embarrasses the client falls within the scope of RPC 1.6(a), and is considered "revealed" even if there is a third party who possessed that information. Further, in order for disclosure to be protected under RPC 1.6(b)(4), the attorney must have "reasonably believe[d] [it] necessary." The Court held that while revealing the client's full name and criminal record was, as a matter of law, embarrassing, the appropriate sanction was public reprimand because Conry’s actions were not a “refusal to acknowledge the wrongful nature of his conduct.” Respondent is publicly reprimanded.