|
|
|
|
Maryland State Bar Ass’n Comm. on Ethics, Op. 99-7, dated Dec. 18, 1998 A law firm engaged in insurance defense litigation may not send detailed billing information to an independent auditing agency, as directed by the insurer, without first obtaining valid client consent. Rule 1.6 is very protective of client information and even a client’s identity may be deemed confidential and shielded from disclosure absent valid consent. Therefore, detailed billing and supplemental information obviously includes confidential information and can only be revealed if the disclosures are impliedly authorized in order to carry out the representation, or when the insured/client consent after consultation. The Committee distinguished between information provided to an insurer in connection with its contractual right to evaluate the claim, and furnishing information to an outside auditor. Billing information is not necessary for proper evaluation of the claim. The law firm must provide the insurer with sufficient information to accomplish evaluation of the claim and such disclosure would be implicitly authorized under Rule 1.6, but under Rule 1.8(b) the firm is not authorized to divulge information that would be to the client’s disadvantage, absent client consent. When consulting with clients about the possibility of releasing information to third parties, the Committee suggested that the lawyer tell the client about the types of information that may be disclosed in billing records, appraise the client of possible legal consequences of releasing billing records to third persons, and inform the client specifically of any confidential information that may disclosed. |
|
Send E-mail to info(at)jocs-law.com with questions
or comments about this web site.
General contact information.
|
