I’m re-watching “A Time to Kill”. In the movie, Brigance is a defense attorney who has been hired to defend two neo-Nazis that raped a 10-year old black girl. Lee, the girl’s father, asks if there’s a chance the two could go free because two other white rapists went free after raping a girl. Brigance says yes. The implication is that in the deep south even with all of the evidence stacked against them, a white person might still go free. Lee implies that maybe something should be done to them stating “If I was in a jam, you’d get me out right?” followed by “You have a daughter, what would you do?” Brigance that night confides to his wife that he thinks Lee might do something, i.e. kill, his daughter’s rapists. The wife asks “Was he serious?” and Brigance says “I don’t know. Could have been just the hurt talking. But you think about those two animals going free and walking the streets? I don’t know.”
Now presumably your regular average person has no obligation to report anything to police based on this. But my question is how about a lawyer? Do they have an obligation? In particular, if they are the defense attorney for the accused?
(I’m sorry I ask so many legal questions. I find the law fascinating, and I would love to study the law)
Here’s the Washington rule (based on model rule, so pretty similar most places) Notice the “shall” and “may” distinction.
(a) A lawyer shall not reveal information relating to the representation of a client unless the
client gives informed consent, the disclosure is impliedly authorized in order to carry out the
representation or the disclosure is permitted by paragraph (b).
(b) A lawyer to the extent the lawyer reasonably believes necessary:
(1) shall reveal information relating to the representation of a client to prevent reasonably
certain death or substantial bodily harm;
(2) may reveal information relating to the representation of a client to prevent the client
from committing a crime;
ETA: Re-reading. There’s no attorney client relationship here. No obligation nor prohibition.
IANAL, but I don’t think the lawyer is under any legal obligation to report it, although he may feel morally obligated to do so. In any event, since no crime has been committed by the father I doubt the police would bother dealing with it. The police have more pressing things to deal with.
Is this detail correct? It’s been a long time since I saw the movie, or read the book, but I don’t recall him being their defender.
Not nit-picking. It probably makes a difference to the answer, if the people being threatened are his clients.
You’re right. I wanted to add the element of them actually being actively involved in the case as the defense. I should have specified I made a slight change to the plot. 
Yeah this seems a whole different matter if that’s the case. Its not their client who’s implying they are going to kill someone, its someone else who is threatening to kill their client
When do a defense lawyer’s obligations to act in the best interest of their client end? This not directly related to the case being defended, but it definitely seems in their clients interests to let them know someone might be about to kill them…
In the novel and film, Brigance represents the father of the girl after he kills the rapists.