Bloom’s loaded statement clearly suggests sexism by Griffin who, Bloom noted, “attacked me, a lifetime women’s right [sic] attorney, and not the rest of her team, all of who are men.” That is a tad bizarre since Bloom put herself out as the lead attorney in the press conference.
However, it is the disclosures that raise the most serious questions. Bloom not only attacks her client as unhinged and possibly sexist, but does so by detailing their prior plan and agreement going into the press conference. That could be viewed as a disclosure without consent under Rule 3-100 Confidential Information of a Client.
Moreover, section (f) of those rules states that lawyers should “advance no fact prejudicial to the honor or reputation of a party or witness, unless required by the justice of the cause with which he or she is charged.”
ABA Model Rule 1.6 Confidentiality of Information does include seven situations permitting disclosures including situations where the client is engaging in fraud through the lawyer’s service, where the client is suing the lawyer, establishing conflicts of interest etc. However, the ABA emphasizes that lawyers must err on the side of less disclosure. Comment 13 stated:
Any such disclosure should ordinarily include no more than the identity of the persons and entities involved in a matter, a brief summary of the general issues involved, and information about whether the matter has terminated. Even this limited information, however, should be disclosed only to the extent reasonably necessary to detect and resolve conflicts of interest that might arise from the possible new relationship.”
The ABA further adds:
Paragraph (b) permits disclosure only to the extent the lawyer reasonably believes the disclosure is necessary to accomplish one of the purposes specified. …In any case, a disclosure adverse to the client’s interest should be no greater than the lawyer reasonably believes necessary to accomplish the purpose. If the disclosure will be made in connection with a judicial proceeding, the disclosure should be made in a manner that limits access to the information to the tribunal or other persons having a need to know it and appropriate protective orders or other arrangements should be sought by the lawyer to the fullest extent practicable.
Much of what is in Bloom’s statement seems gratuitous and unnecessary. A client can act like a pedantic child but a lawyer cannot. That means that we often have to absorb a hit to preserve professional obligations. Notably, Griffin’s criticism was far less detailed than Bloom’s response. She merely said that she did not like her representation, thought the fees were a waste of money, and wants nothing to do with Bloom. That was all contained in a brief tweet but then Bloom unleashed a detailed and long counterattack that seemed to put her own interests before those of her former client.
Most attorneys avoid public squabbles with their clients and issue terse denials to any suggestion of malpractice or misconduct. Disclosures are possible when an attorney is sued or charged. In favor of Bloom, this is fairly low grade information — a basic allegation that Griffin went off script and ignored the advice of counsel. However, most attorneys would feel uncomfortable disclosing information that the range of legal advice and support given to Griffin.
What do you think?
