Under Model Rule 1.6, may a lawyer disclose confidential information to prevent death or substantial bodily harm?

Study for the MPRE Rules Test. Utilize flashcards and multiple choice questions, each with hints and explanations. Prepare effectively for your exam!

Multiple Choice

Under Model Rule 1.6, may a lawyer disclose confidential information to prevent death or substantial bodily harm?

Explanation:
Confidentiality has a narrow allowance: a lawyer may reveal confidential information to prevent death or substantial bodily harm, but only to the extent reasonably necessary. This means the lawyer should disclose the minimum information and take only the steps needed to avert the harm, such as warning a potential victim or notifying authorities, rather than broad or indiscriminate disclosure. This is why the best answer is the option stating that disclosure can occur to the extent reasonably necessary. It respects the safety concern while preserving confidentiality as much as possible. The alternatives are too broad or too restrictive: never disclosure ignores the protective exception; revealing everything without limitation contradicts the limitation implied by “reasonably necessary”; and requiring a court order ignores that the rule itself allows necessary disclosures even without a court directive.

Confidentiality has a narrow allowance: a lawyer may reveal confidential information to prevent death or substantial bodily harm, but only to the extent reasonably necessary. This means the lawyer should disclose the minimum information and take only the steps needed to avert the harm, such as warning a potential victim or notifying authorities, rather than broad or indiscriminate disclosure.

This is why the best answer is the option stating that disclosure can occur to the extent reasonably necessary. It respects the safety concern while preserving confidentiality as much as possible. The alternatives are too broad or too restrictive: never disclosure ignores the protective exception; revealing everything without limitation contradicts the limitation implied by “reasonably necessary”; and requiring a court order ignores that the rule itself allows necessary disclosures even without a court directive.

Subscribe

Get the latest from Passetra

You can unsubscribe at any time. Read our privacy policy