WWaasshhiinnggttoonn aanndd LLeeee LLaaww RReevviieeww Volume 41 Issue 2 Article 3 Spring 3-1-1984 TThhee LLaawwyyeerr''ss AAlllleeggiiaannccee:: PPrriioorriittiieess RReeggaarrddiinngg CCoonnfifiddeennttiiaalliittyy R. W. Nahstoll Follow this and additional works at: https://scholarlycommons.law.wlu.edu/wlulr Part of the Legal Ethics and Professional Responsibility Commons RReeccoommmmeennddeedd CCiittaattiioonn R. W. Nahstoll, The Lawyer's Allegiance: Priorities Regarding Confidentiality, 41 Wash. & Lee L. Rev. 421 (1984). Available at: https://scholarlycommons.law.wlu.edu/wlulr/vol41/iss2/3 This Article is brought to you for free and open access by the Washington and Lee Law Review at Washington and Lee University School of Law Scholarly Commons. It has been accepted for inclusion in Washington and Lee Law Review by an authorized editor of Washington and Lee University School of Law Scholarly Commons. For more information, please contact [email protected]. THE LAWYER'S ALLEGIANCE: PRIORITIES REGARDING CONFIDENTIALITY R. W. NAHSTOLL* I. As ADOPTED BY THE HOUSE OF DELEGATES, THE MODEL RULES ARE INADEQUATE The ethical rules and admonitions governing the legal profession in the United States are in a serious state of disarray and inadequacy. This condition prevails notwithstanding monumental efforts of the American Bar Associa- tion Commission on Evaluation of Professional Standards (familiarly known as the "Kutak Commission" after its late Chairman, Robert J. Kutak) during the period of six years from its appointment in the summer of 1977 until its work product was left in tattered shreds in August, 1983 as the House of Delegates of the American Bar Association (ABA) adopted the Model Rules of Professional Conduct (Model Rules). The unfortunate fate worked upon the Kutak Commission's proposals by actions of the House of Delegates has left the country's lawyers and the highest judicial bodies of the several states, which have ultimate authority for the governance of lawyers, in confusion and without an adequate structure of ethics and professionalism. As the Model Rules now stand: (1) A lawyer must stand silently by though his client defrauds third persons or the government, and may withdraw only if possible in a manner protective of his fraudulent client. (2) The lawyer has a duty to disclose a criminal act, fraud, or perjury perpetrated by his client on a tribunal to avoid assisting the crime or fraud. (3) Persons involved with a corporation or other organization are free to abuse the organization and the lawyer's response is limited to withdrawal from representation. He may not expostulate to anyone who might be in a position to eliminate the abuse. He may not even advise succeeding counsel of his reason for having withdrawn. Recent cases have provided evidence of the inadequacy and unacceptability of these rules. One dramatic example is the matter of OPM Leasing Services, Inc. (OPM), a corporation reported to have defrauded nineteen banks, in- * Member Portland, Oregon Bar. B.A., 1940, Michigan State University; LL.B., 1946, University of Michigan Law School. This article was written during Autumn, 1983 when I was privileged to be Frances Lewis Lawyer-in-Residence at Washington and Lee University School of Law. I acknowledge with gratitude the assistance of Francis D. "Mike" Shaffer, a research intern to that program. I am also grateful to Professors Thomas L. Shaffer, Director of the Frances Lewis Law Center, and Victor Rosenblum, its then Scholar-in-Residence, each of whom reacted to a draft. Any errors, of course, are my responsibility. [Vol. 41:421 WASHINGTON AND LEE LAW REVIEW surance companies and pension funds of some 200 million dollars.' OPM ac- complished its galactic scam by securing institutional loans to finance pur- chases of non-existent computers. OPM's major officers fabricated title documents and related writings for the computers. The loans were secured by the pledge of rents, represented receivable under fictitious leases. For pur- poses of this article, OPM's meteoric rise from its organization in 1970 until it plummeted to grand jury proceedings and bankruptcy in February, 1981, should be considered in a succession of periods: Period I, before July 22, 1980 when OPM was represented by the ABC law firm, and during which OPM closed some 115 million dollars in phony loans; Period II, from July 22, 1980, when OPM's president admitted to ABC its fraudulent pattern of operations, to the first half of September, 1980, when senior partners of ABC "agreed that it was appropriate to resign" but were advised by outside counsel, consulted because of expertise in ethics matters, "that the withdrawal had to be accomplished in a manner least likely to cause injury to the client";' Period III, from the ABC decision in the first half of September, 1980 to September 23, 1980, when ABC formally resolved to withdraw and so notified OPM, during which period OPM bilked a lender of 6.2 million dollars in a loan closed by ABC; Period IV, from September 23, 1980 to some time in December, 1980, when the withdrawal of ABC was completed; Period V, from September 23, 1980 until February, 1981, during which OPM was represented by XYZ law firm. XYZ had inquired of ABC why ABC no longer represented OPM, but had been put off by ABC with a meaningless explanation designed to be pro- tective of OPM. The explanation was deemed appropriate under New York Code DR 2-110(A)(2) concerning withdrawal. ABC's action prompted the Trustee in the OPM Bankruptcy to observe: Although the Trustee does not attempt to resolve the question whether the course adopted by [ABC] complied with the Code of Professional Responsibility, one thing seems clear: the firm could have followed other courses, consistent with its ethical responsibilities, that would have stopped the fraud. Instead, after receiving notice that it was deal- ing with a crook, it acted in a way that helped [the President of OPM] continue the fraud for eight additional months during which finan- cial institutions were bilked out of more than $85 million.3 1. See The N.Y. Times, Jan. 9, 1983 (Magazine), at 31 (extensive review of OPM Leasing Services, Inc. matter under by-line of Stuart Taylor Jr.); Wall St. J., Dec. 31, 1982, at I (by-lines of Paul Blustein and Stanley Penn). Additional details of the OPM Matter are contained in the Report of the Trustee Concerning Fraud and Other Misconduct in the Management of the Af- fairs of the Debtor (Apr. 25, 1983), filed in the United States Bankruptcy Court, Southern District of New York, In re O.P.M. Leasing Services; Inc., Debtor, Reorganization No. 81-B-10533 (BRL) [hereinafter cited as Trustee's Report]. The Report consists of 600 pages plus 38 appendices. 2. N.Y. Times, Jan. 9, 1983 (Magazine), at 48. 3. Trustee's Report, supra note 1, at 409. Contrary to the Trustee's contention, it is not at all "clear" that "the [ABC] firm could have followed other courses consistent with ethical principles, that would have stopped the fraud." As long as it is assumed that during periods II and III ABC believed the fraud was not continuing, ABC seems to have acted "consistent with ethical" rules, though perhaps not with ethical principles. 1984] CONFIDENTIALITY After [ABC] resigned, OPM's in-house legal staff and [XYZ] closed fraudulent Rockwell lease financings totaling approximately $15 4 million. In June, July, and August, 1980, fraudulent loans were placed by OPM totalling 60,787,544 dollars. Of this total, almost 22 million dollars were placed after July 22 when ABC was given direct notice of the pattern of fraud of its client.S The shocking thing about the OPM Leasing case is neither the immensity of the swindle accomplished by OPM nor the chutzpah manifest in its concep- tion and implementation. Rather, it is that ABC law firm probably did con- form to the applicable prescribed rules of ethics; or, the corollary: that the ethical rules neither demand of nor permit lawyers in the situation of ABC more responsible and honorable action than the conduct of ABC. Perhaps the impact of recognizing the inadequacy of those rules is exceeded by the realization that, in the wake of the OPM Leasing debacle, the ABA House of Delegates rejected the Kutak Commission proposals and retained rules that would encourage and, indeed, require lawyers to act again as ABC acted in protection of a fraudulent client to the substantial and continuing damage of identifiable third parties. The Trustee's report in the OPM matter referred to the House of Delegates action as "outrageous and irresponsible." 6 4. Trustee's Report, supra note 1, at 408. 5. Trustee's Report, supra note 1, at Appendices 34 and 35. 6. Trustee's Report, supra note I, at 422. The Trustee stated: The American Bar Association recently addressed an issue bearing on one aspect of [ABC] firm's conduct-whether lawyers may disclose information concerning a client's fraud to law enforcement authorities and affected third parties. An ABA study com- mission advised adoption of a model rule that would have permitted, but not required, lawyers to disclose client confidences when necessary to prevent the client from com- mitting a fraudulent act "likely to result ...in substantial injury to the financial interests or property of another" or when necessary "to rectify the consequences of a client's criminal or fraudulent act in the furtherance of which the lawyer's services had been used." Earlier this year, the ABA House of Delegates, the organization's policy-making body, rejected the proposed rule and voted instead for a rule that would make it unethical for lawyers to divulge client secrets in order to protect third parties from an ongoing fraud. Even with the [ABC] story before it, the House of Delegates provisionally adopted a rule prohibiting lawyers from disclosing client secrets except when necessary to pre- vent "imminent death or substantial bodily harm," to correct false or perjured evidence, to defend malpractice actions, or to prosecute suits to recover legal fees. The Trustee considers the ABA's action outrageous and irresponsible. The Trustee hopes that the ABA will reconsider the issue and that state bar authorities will reject the rule in favor of one that goes at least as far as the proposed rule in permitting lawyers to prevent their clients from committing future frauds and from using lawyers as instruments in fraudulent schemes. Id. Commenting on the same action, the New York Times editorialized: Forced to choose starkly between models of the lawyer as client's mouthpiece and as caretaker of the law, the American Bar Association has opted for mouthpiece. In- deed, it held so faithfully to the role of hired gun that it left the impression it condones a lawyer's silent acquiescence in fraud. Writing a new code of ethics, the A.B.A.'s House of Delegates approved a rule that requires lawyers to keep their client's secrets-no matter what the cost of a client's dishonesty to innocent victims. Unless clarified, that 424 WASHINGTON AND LEE LAW REVIEW [Vol. 41:421 For want of a system adequate to define and implement acceptable stan- dards of ethics and professional responsibility, the legal profession is without competence for self-regulation and, accordingly, may not satisfy the accepted definition of a profession.7 At best, in the absence of an adequate set of model cramped view is a disservice to both the public and the profession. * * * Consider a lawyer hired to offer a legal opinion about a loan request or commercial sale. On impressive letterhead the lawyer describes the transaction and proclaims it lawful to other interested parties. Later the lawyer learns that the client lied and that the opinion is in fact deceptive. If the client refuses to publish the truth, must the lawyer stay silent? That's the example put to the A.B.A. this week. It voted to prohibit a lawyer thus misused from telling anyone the truth. With few exceptions, the rule appears to leave the lawyer only one way out: to resign the account, without explanation. The exceptions are for cases of perjury in the lawyer's presence, risk of "death or imminent bodily harm" and self-defense, when the lawyer is sued for malpractice or can't collect his fee. As adopted, this rule comes close to saying that client confidentiality may be sacrificed to protect a lawyer's financial interests, but no one else's. It is hard to believe that a profession built on words cannot define a higher standard. N.Y. Times, Feb. 11, 1983, at 26, col. 1. Two helpful articles on the issue of the lawyer's duty respecting his client's frauds are: Kramer, Clients' Frauds and Their Lawyers' Obligations: A Study in ProfessionalR esponsibility, 67 GEo. L.J. 991 (1979) (Professor Kramer would require merely withdrawal); and Gruenbaum, Clients' Fraudsa nd Their Lawyers' Obligations:A Response to ProfessorK ramer, 68 GEo. L.J. 191 (1979). Sissela Bok has said, "There is much truth in saying that one is responsible for what happens after one has done something wrong or ques- tionable. But it is a very narrow view of responsibility which does not also take some blame for a disaster one could easily have averted, no matter how much others are also to blame." SISSELA BOK, LYING: MORAL CHOICES IN PUBLIC AND PRIVATE LIFE 41 (1978). 7. See DENNIS M. CAMPBELL, DOCTORS, LAWYERS, MINISTERS: ETHICS IN PROFESSIONAL PRACTICE 21-25 (1982). Campbell lists eight common denominators of a learned "profession." 1. The prctessional is engaged in a social service that is essential and unique. ... 2. The professional is one who has developed a high degree of knowledge .... 3. The professional must develop the ability to apply the special body of knowledge that is unique to the profession. .. 4. The professional is part of a group that is autonomous and claims the right to regulate itself.... 5. The professional recognizes and affirms a code of ethics. . . . Codes are not as important, however, as a long tradition of ethical practice within a profession ... The point to be made here is that a concern for ethics is one of the defining characteristics of a profession. 6. The professional exhibits a strong self-discipline and acceptsp ersonalr esponsibility for actions and decisions. . . . Self-discipline is closely linked to the acceptance of personal responsibility for decisions made in practice. The true professional cannot be a functionary; accountability for both the procedures and results of his or her work is recognized and accepted. 7. The professional's primary concern and commitment to communal interest rather than merely to the self. This means that the professional places neither his or her own self-interest, nor the self-interest of those who are served above a concern for the greater good of the entire society. The professional is expected to think about the consequences of a given case in the larger context of a society's needs and interests.... Professionals are dealing with growing numbers of cases in which communal needs and individual needs are in conflict. 8. The professional is more concerned with services rendered than with financialr ewards. Id. See Morgan, The Evolving Concept of ProfessionalR esponsibility, 90 HARv. L. Rav. 702 (1977) (adverse criticism of the bar's rules of ethics, and specifically the Model Code, and more par- ticularly of the motives of the bar which, Morgan charges, reverse the priorities of an appropriate 19841 CONFIDENTIALITY rules around which the profession generally can coalesce, the several states will end up with respective and non-uniform codes and the fragmentation of the American bar will be exacerbated. "The legal profession" may soon disintegrate into fifty, or more, collections of lawyers, each without a recognized right of self-regulation. II. THE TRAIL TO INADEQUACY Examination of how the Model Rules have ended in this state begins with a look at the history of the critical ethical principle of lawyer-client con- fidentiality, culminating in the Kutak Commission's proposals respecting con- fidentiality and the reception accorded those proposals by the ABA House of Delegates. Professor Geoffrey C. Hazard has reminded us that problems of lawyers ethics arise because there are clients: [T]he notion of ethics as applied to lawyers entails the difficulty, com- mon to all professions, arising from the fact that there is a client in the picture. Ethics, seriously discussed as in philosophy, usually speak in terms that require treating all other persons on an equal footing. That is, their norms are cast as universals in which in principle every "other" is entitled to equal respect and consideration in the calcula- tion of the actor's alternatives and course of action. On the other hand, professional ethics give priority to an "other" who is a client and in general require subordination of everyone else's interests to that of the client. Indeed, the central problem in professional ethics can be described as the tension between the client's preferred position resulting from the professional connection and the position of equal- ity that everyone else is accorded by general principles of morality and legality.8 Different but equally stressful problems in lawyers' ethics arise because there are lawyers. The problems arise not only because some lawyers may breach rules of ethics. They arise from the tensions between the client's preferred position and the position of the client's lawyer, vis-a-vis the several systems of deliverance of legal services within which the lawyer functions as the client's representative, and the position of the lawyer as an individual with a con- science and sense of personal honor and morality. This part of the problem will be a focus of this article. The question is to what limits must, or may, structure of lawyer's ethics). Professor (now Dean) Morgan stated: It seems likely that the Code's biases reflect the fact that whenever the ABA or any other ethics body has come upon a tough ethical issue, it has tried to be "practical" in its solution. Because lawyers have consistently been the ones judging "practicality", at points of conflict the biases have repeatedly, albeit unconsciously, prevailed. The client's interest has moved to the forefront only when it was coextensive with the lawyer's, and the public interest-which tends to cramp a lawyers style-was made "ethically" obligatory only when it was already compelled by law. Id. at 740. 8. GEOFFREY C. HAZARD, JR., ETHIcs IN THE PRACTICE OF LAW 3 (1978). WASHINGTON AND LEE LAW REVIEW [Vol. 41:421 a lawyer be vulnerable to countenance, tolerate, or assist the perjurious, criminal, fraudulent, unfair or immoral acts of his client with respect to the tribunal or third persons in the various contexts in which the lawyer represents the client. Professor Wigmore states that the protection of confidential communica- tions of clients to lawyers was recognized in the 16th century reign of Elizabeth I, when it "appears to have commended itself at the very outset as a natural exception to the then novel right of testimonial compulsion.'9 Until the time of our Colonial Revolution, exclusion of the evidence was rationalized by in- vocation of "gentleman's honor", and established a privilege held, not by the client, but by the lawyer. The "gentleman's honor" rationale supported a status of confidential privilege for communications between those of sundry relationships in addition to that of lawyer and client.'" Early in the 18th cen- tury, the theory began to evolve, becoming fully established only in the 1870's, that the privilege is of the client, not of his attorney, and that the policy of the rule is to promote freedom of clients to consult with their counsel. Theoretically, that freedom is enhanced by reducing the client's apprehension of his lawyer's disclosure of the client's communications without the client's consent. I" The earliest effort of the ABA to codify lawyers' ethical rules were the ABA Canons of Professional Ethics adopted in 1908 consisting of thirty-seven Canons and later increased to forty-seven. They have been from time to time amended and are sometimes referred to as "ABA Canons".2 But, it would be misleading to omit reference to sources of concern for lawyers' ethics that antedated the ABA Canons of 1908. The ABA Canons were based in part on the Alabama Code of Ethics adopted in 1887 by the Alabama State Bar Association,' 3 which had drawn heavily on the Essay on Professional Ethics published in 1854 by Judge George Sharswood.' Sharswood's essay was pre- 9. JomH HENRY WIGMORE, EvmENcE r TRALs AT COMMON LAW Vol. 8, #2290 (John T. McNaughton rev. (1961)). 10. Id. at #2286. 11. Id. at #2290, 2291. In #2285, Professor Wigmore lists "four fundamental condi- tions... recognized as necessary to the establishment of a privilege against the disclosure of communications: (1) The communications must originate in a confidence that they will not be disclosed. (2) This element of confidentiality must be essential to the full and satisfactory maintenance of the relation between the parties. (3)T he relationm ust be one which in the opinion of the community ought to be sedulouslyfostered. (4) The injury that would inure to the relation by the disclosure of the communications must be greater than the benefit thereby gained for the correct disposal of litigation. Id. 12. ABA Canons of Ethics, published in Transactions of the Thirty-First Annual Meeting of the ABA 56 (1908). See ABA Opinions On Legal Ethics 11-199, published by American Bar Foundation, Chicago (1967) (full 47 canons). 13. 118 Ala. XXIII (1899). The rules were adopted by the Alabama General Assembly in 1899. 14. George Sharswood, Essay on Professional Ethics, reprinted in 32 ABA Rep. (1907). Judge Sharswood was Chief Justice of Pennsylvania and founding dean of the University of Pennsylvania Law School. 1984] CONFIDENTIALITY ceded by the work of David Hoffman, Esq., the first statement of profes- sional ethics drafted for American lawyers. The ABA Canons originally included, as Canon No. 15, the following, drawn from the Alabama Code of Ethics: The lawyer owes "entire devotion to the interest of the client, warm zeal in the maintenance and defense of his rights and the exertion of his utmost learning and ability," to the end that nothing be taken or be withheld from him, save by the rules of law, legally applied. *** But, it is steadfastly to be borne in mind that the great trust of the lawyer is to be performed within and not without the bounds of the law. The office of attorney does not permit, much less does it demand of him for any client, violation of the law or any manner of fraud or chicane. He must obey his own conscience and not that of his client.'6 The Alabama counterparts of Canon No. 15 are found in Duty No. 4th of the specific duties lawyers were sworn "not to violate" and General Rule No. 10, adopted by the Alabama State Bar Association.'7 The canons mandated a lawyer's preservation of his client's confidences in Canon No. 37." As amended in 1937, Canon No. 37 provided: It is the duty of a lawyer to preserve his client's confidences. This duty outlasts the lawyer's employment, and extends as well to his employees; and neither of them should accept employment which in- volves or may involve the disclosure or use of those confidences, either for the private advantage of the lawyer or his employees or to the disadvantage of the client, without his knowledge and consent, and even though there are other available sources of such information. A lawyer should not continue employment when he discovers that this obligation prevents the performance of his full duty to his former or to his new client. If a lawyer is accused by his client, he is not precluded from disclos- ing the truth in respect to the accusation. The announced intention of a client to commit a crime is not included within the confidences which he is bound to respect. He may properly make such disclosures as may be necessary to prevent the act or protect those against whom it is threatened. The lawyer's responsibility to third persons with respect to unrectified fraud or deception was established by Canon No. 41, which denied the protection 15. D. Hor-tiAN, A COURSE OF LEGAL STUDY 752-75 (2d. ed. 1836), reprinted in HENRY S. DRINKER, LEGAL ETRics 352, appendix F [hereinafter cited as DRINKER]. 16. Id. at 313-14, appendix C. 17. See id. at 353, 355, appendix F. 18. ABA CANONS OF PROFESSIONAL ETmCs Canon 37 (originally adopted July 26, 1928 (53 ABA Rep. 130)). WASHINGTON AND LEE LAW REVIEW [Vol. 41:421 of confidentiality to information from whatever source concerning a client's ongoing or prospective fraud or deception: When a lawyer discovers that some fraud or deception has been prac- ticed, which has unjustly imposed upon the court or a party, he should endeavor to rectify it; at first by advising his client, and if his client refuses to forego the advantage thus unjustly gained, he should promptly inform the injured person or his counsel, so that they may take appropriate steps. The ABA Canons were supplanted by the ABA Model Code of Profes- sional Responsibility, adopted by the House of Delegates in 1969, and thereafter amended. 9 It is referred to as the "Model Code". 20 Building from the Model Code, the Kutak Commission proposed, in suc- cessive drafts of its Model Rules of Professional Conduct,2' six rules related to the lawyer-client relationship and to the lawyer's duty of confidentiality. These are rule 1.2, relating to Scope of Representation; rule 1.6, generally speaking to Confidentiality of Information; rule 1.16, specifying conditions under which the attorney has a right of Declining or Terminating Representa- tion; rule 3.3, respecting Candor Toward the Tribunal; and rule 4.3, concern- ing Truthfulness in Statements to Others. Rule 1.2 Scope of Representation, in Draft May 1981, provided that, sub- ject to stated conditions, the client controlled decisions concerning the objec- tives of representation, including whether to accept an offer of settlement, and concerning the means by which those objectives were to be pursued. In a criminal case, the lawyer was to be bound by the client's decision, after consultation, respecting his plea, whether to waive a jury trial, and whether the client would testify. The conditions governing those controls of the client 19. The Model Code was adopted by the ABA House of Delegates August 12, 1969 and was amended by the House February 1970, February 1974, February 1975, August 1976, August 1977, August 1978, February 1979, February 1980 and August 1980. 20. See supra note 19. The Model Code, DR 6-101(A), for the first time codified a require- ment that a lawyer handle a client's matters with competence, preparation and care: A lawyer shall not: (1) Handle a legal matter which he knows or should know that he is not competent to handle, without associating with him a lawyer who is competent to handle it. (2) Handle a legal matter without preparation adequate in the circumstances. To the Model Code's requirements of competence, preparation, and care, the Kutak Commission proposed to add "efficiency" as an express part of competence. MODEL RULES OF PROFESSIONAL CONDUCT Rule 1.1 (Discussion Draft Jan. 30, 1980; Second Discussion Draft Oct. 9, 1980; Draft May 30, 1981). This seemed a rather reasonable proposal consistent with appropriate client ex- pectations. Nevertheless, the rocky road ahead for the Kutak Commission proposals was foretold when this requirement that a lawyer be efficient was deleted before the Draft August 1983. 21. The three drafts of the Model Rules of Professional Conduct to be referred to fre- quently in this paper are: (1) Discussion Draft, completed January 1980 [hereinafter cited as DiscussionD raft]; (2) Proposed Final Draft, May 30, 1981 [hereinafter cited as Draft May 1981]; and (3) Draft submitted to the ABA House of Delegates, August 1983 [hereinafter cited as Draft August 1983]. As adopted August 2, 1983, the Model Rules appear in the centerfold of the ABA Journal, November 1983. 1984] CONFIDENTIALITY were: (1) If the client were to insist upon pursuing an objective ("means" are not included) that the lawyer considered "repugnant or imprudent", the lawyer might withdraw if withdrawal could be "accomplished without material adverse effect on the interests of the client;"'22 (2) The lawyer is, in all events, prohibited from counseling or assisting a client in conduct the lawyer knows or reasonably should know is criminal or fraudulent or in the preparation of a written instrument containing terms legally prohibited, provided, that the lawyer may counsel or assist a client "in a good faith effort to determine the validity, scope, meaning or application of the law."23 As adopted in the Model Rules, condition (1), effectively intact, was moved to rule 1.16(b)(3). Condition (2) was changed by limiting its application to conduct that the lawyer "knows" to be criminal or fraudulent, and to eliminate those situations in which the lawyer "reasonably should know." The second condition was further weakened by deleting express reference to the prepara- tion of written instruments including legally prohibited terms (presumably in- cluding unenforceable terms). The proviso allowing the lawyer to counsel or assist a client's effort to determine the validity, scope, meaning, or applica- tion of the law, but only when the client's effort is "in good faith," is in the adopted rule 1.2(d) and is an important limitation. It is designed to pro- hibit the lawyer's encouragement of perjury which was one of the alternatives presented and left as a reader's quandary by the author of Anatomy of a Murder." Rule 1.2(d) also offers to the lawyer a defined route to avoid being used by an exploitive client. In either case, the difficulties of identifying the client's "good faith" are obvious. Rule 1.6 Confidentiality of Information, as proposed by Draft May 1981, prohibited a lawyer from revealing "information relating to representa- tion of a client," except with the client's consent, and subject to other specific exceptions. The distinction between "confidences". and "secrets", in the Model Code25 was abandoned. The prohibition applies to all "information" of any kind relating to the representation, regardless of the source or the circumstances under which it came to the attention of the lawyer. The prohibition was substan- tially broader than the definition of confidentiality recognized as privileged by the rules of evidence. 22. Draft May 1981, supra note 21, at rule 1.2(c). Rule 1.2(c), in revised form, is included in the adopted Rules as rule 1.16(b)(3). It extends the lawyer's discretionary right to withdraw beyond those provided in the Model Code, DR 7-101(B): "In his representation of a client, a lawyer may: .... (2) Refuse to aid or participate in conduct which he believes to be unlawful, even though there is some support for an argument that the conduct is legal." Id. (emphasis added). 23. Draft May 1981, supra note 21, at rule 1.2(d). 24. ROBERT TRAVERs, NOM DE PLUME OF VOELKER, JOHN D. (1958). 25. MODEL CODE OF PROFESSIONAL REsPONSIBILTY DR 4-101(A) (1979). DR 4-101(A) provides: "Confidence" refers to information protected by the attorney-client privilege under applicable law, and "secret" refers to other information gained in the professional relationship that the client has requested be held inviolate or the disclosure of which would be embarrassing or would be likely to be detrimental to the client.