If the matter cannot be identified, then it would be something of a stretch to accuse the speaker of breaching confidentiality. But this obviously isn’t an instance where the OP stated something generic like “I once worked on a case, and boy did they ever sound sleazy to me. I was so happy when the jury awarded damages to the plaintiff.”
What’s so hard to believe? I have never publicly commented on any identifiable case on which I have served as legal counsel, except as authorized by the client or as expressly authorized by the Texas Disciplinary Rules of Professional Conduct. I’m sure you could probably find a few generic comments on unidentifiable matters, e.g., “It sucks being a defendant in South Texas,” but I take my professional obligations of confidentiality quite seriously, thank you very much.
You’re allowed to bitch about your cases. What you’re not allowed to do is identify them when you’re bitching about them.
Having said that, I do not endorse the amount of detail Hamlet provided in that thread, which could have enabled someone to track down the specific case he was commenting on (unless, of course, he changed the details to prevent it from being identified).
hehehe…I live in a small town. If you made that comment here people would know right away who you were talking about. In fact, he has bought me a drink a few times when I’ve run into him. I make an excuse (pull out cell phone) and leave after I finish my drink.
Absolutely. A standard I hold to as well. What I commented on were the aspects as reported in the local major newspaper, which published direct quotations of both trial testimony and deposition segments read into the record. Ain’t one word I wrote here that goes beyond that.
My bad, I should have phrased the OP more along the lines of: “I have been following this case because I proofread pretrial depositions, including some in this case, and unlike most cases I encounter I cared about the outcome. The testimony at trial revealed” callous disregard, DA’s office’s complicity, etc. Which is what I meant despite my infelicitous phrasing.
As to “poisoning the well” for any retrial – I’d say the newspaper did a far more thorough job of that than anything said here.
Not the one mention of the press reports in your comments, except, of course, for the reporting that got the Herald sued for libel in the first place. So you’ll have to forgive me for assuming that you were talking about the deposition transcripts you read, seeing as how that’s pretty clearly what you were talking about.
See, I said that I wouldn’t comment on any case publically that I knew professionally, w/sufficient information as to identify that case even though the information is public.
I will comment (in public) about cases I know professionally w/o sufficient info to identify that case (what you did here specifically identified the case)
I will comment in private w/specifics about cases I know if and only if there is a professional reason to do so.
I will comment in public about cases that I’ve got no professional contact w/, with or without sufficient info to identify the case.
IOW - if I’m involved professionally in the case, I do not comment socially about the case allowing folks to know I"m involved professionally w/the case, even if the info specified is public. It’s unprofessional. Period. YMOV, since you did exactly identify the case and that you were involved on it in a professional manner.
to the extent that I have not and will not let certain family members know that so and so has a criminal record. Is it public info? yes. Do they know the guy? yes. Do they know I know the guy? Socially yes, professional, they don’t know and don’t have the right to know
A question for you confidentiality discussants: As I read ETF’s comments, it appears that information that she was made privy to under circumstances in which confidentiality governed was then brought out in open court and made a part of the record of the case, to which she or any other individual having interest could obtain access. Because she felt strongly about this case, she pitted the libel-committing newspaper and made references to the formerly-confidential information she had processed, which was now public record.
Am I correct in understanding that your feeling is that ethically if you are provided information in a circumstance invoking confidentiality, it is then your obligation to preserve that confidentiality, even if the information in question is presented publicly?
For example, suppose ETF’s California counterpart was engaged in taking depositions from boys who had stayed at Neverland. Those depositions presumably will be read into the record at Michael Jackson’s trial, and they or excerpts from them will become front page news. In other words, anybody with access to a decent newspaper will be able to read and cite them. Except, according to the theory I hear being propounded, that California court reporter who first recorded the depositions, who will be obliged to keep her/his mouth shut on what every other citizen can access and speak about ad nauseam.
I do have a practical purpose beyond establishing the ethics surrounding ETF’s bringing the matter up in this thread. Two years ago, my ex-boss was offered a “special position” in a Georgia-based IT holding company. In deciding whether to invest in it, he obtained a bunch of confidential information regarding that company’s assets, agreements, and plans, and shared it with me to seek my opinion. I presumed, and continue to presume, that my employ as his confidential secretary and his documented assurance of confidentiality as to the contents, required me to keep the information I learned confidential. I have recently learned that most of the information I was provided in confidential circumstances has come to light in the settlement of an ongoing lawsuit, and the acquisition of smaller companies that was proposed has now occurred. Since that information is now available to any reader of the Atlanta Business Journal, the business section of the Constitution, etc., may I consider myself released from that confidentiality?
That’s a different issue than the one presented here. The breach of confidentiality is not the disclosure of information, but rather of the OP’s opinion based on information acquired in the performance of her duties. It’s the difference between stating that “Witness X testified Y” and “Witness X is a guilty piece of crap who got everything that was coming to him.”
In general, it is not a violation of confidentiality to disclose information, even though obtained under confidentiality, that has subsequently become generally known.
Poly, for me, ethical issue isnt what was disclosed, but rather discussion of issue in a public venue (not professional). Unless my employer (and the client involved) has given permission, my involvement in the situation is not my right to disclose, opinions, attitudes, etc.
look at it this way, what would you feel about say, a teacher, a secretary at your lawyers office, the person who filed your unemployement claim, posting to a message board about you, after the paper published an account of your lost lawsuit against your neighbor, disclosing the relationship? Inappropriate, unprofessional IME.