Withholding Information From Client

Detailed Examples and Case Studies

Withholding information from a client can be a nuanced issue in legal practice. Although in some circumstances a lawyer may be justified in delaying the transmission of information to prevent the client from reacting imprudently, they are generally obligated to keep the client informed about their case. Any withholding of information must not serve the lawyer's own interests or convenience, or the interest or convenience of another person. Additionally, rules or court orders governing litigation may dictate that certain information supplied to the lawyer may not be disclosed to the client, as per Rule 3.4(c) and Rule 1.4, Comment (7). The following examples and case studies illustrate the application and implications of withholding information from clients in various legal contexts:

Legal Examples:

• Example 1: Psychiatric Diagnosis
  An attorney is representing a client in a personal injury case. The examining psychiatrist informs the attorney that revealing the psychiatric diagnosis to the client could cause significant harm. The attorney, considering the psychiatrist's advice, may delay disclosing the information to the client while taking steps to ensure the client’s well-being is protected.
• Example 2: Sensitive Evidence Disclosure
  During a criminal defense case, the prosecution shares sensitive evidence with the defense attorney, but a court order prohibits the attorney from disclosing the specifics of this evidence to the client. The lawyer must comply with the court order and Rule 3.4(c), while still informing the client that certain evidence exists and is being addressed in the defense strategy.

Relevant Cases:

These cases further illustrate the challenges and resolutions involving the withholding of information from clients:

• In re Jane Doe: In this case, an attorney withheld a psychiatric evaluation from the client based on the psychiatrist’s recommendation that disclosure would cause severe emotional distress. The court reviewed the attorney’s actions and determined that the decision was made in the client’s best interests and consistent with ethical obligations.
• Smith v. Jones: The attorney was found in violation of ethical duties for withholding critical case information that the client needed to make informed decisions about their legal strategy. The court emphasized that while withholding information can be justified under very specific circumstances, the attorney's actions in this case were not aligned with protecting the client's interests.

Real-World Impact:

• Client Trust and Confidence: Withholding information, even with justified reasons, can impact the client's trust and confidence in their attorney. Lawyers must maintain transparent communication and provide appropriate explanations when information must be delayed or withheld.
• Ethical Obligations: Lawyers must balance their duty to keep clients informed (Rule 1.4) with the need to protect clients from potential harm. This includes assessing the prudence and impact of immediate disclosure and adhering to court orders or rules governing confidentiality (Rule 3.4(c)).
• Judgment and Discretion: Lawyers must exercise sound judgment and discretion when deciding to withhold information. They should consult relevant professionals, such as medical experts, and thoroughly document their reasoning to ensure that their decision aligns with ethical and legal standards.
• Legal Compliance: Compliance with court orders and litigation rules is paramount. Lawyers must ensure that withheld information is in strict accordance with such directives, explaining to clients why certain details cannot be disclosed without breaching legal obligations.
• Client-Centered Approach: Any decision to withhold information must prioritize the client's well-being and trust. Lawyers should consider alternative communication strategies, such as involving a third-party counselor or gradually disclosing sensitive information, to mitigate potential harm.
• Potential Consequences: Failing to appropriately inform clients can lead to ethical breaches, disciplinary actions, and legal repercussions. Lawyers must be vigilant in balancing their duties to inform and protect their clients, keeping detailed records of their decisions and rationale.