Meyerhoffer v. Empire Fire & Marine Insurance
Citation and Court
497 F.2d 1190 (2d Cir. 1974), United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit
Facts
Meyerhoffer was an attorney who, during his representation of Empire Fire & Marine Insurance, discovered that his client was engaged in securities fraud by filing false registration statements with the SEC. He withdrew from the representation and later disclosed the client’s fraud when he himself was named as a defendant in a lawsuit arising from the registration statements, asserting the disclosure in his own defense.
Issue
Whether an attorney who discloses confidential information about a client’s fraud to defend himself in a lawsuit arising from that fraud violates the professional duty of confidentiality.
Holding
The Second Circuit held that the attorney’s disclosure was permissible under Disciplinary Rule 7-102(B) because the disclosure was limited to what was necessary to defend himself, and attorneys are permitted to reveal client confidences to establish a defense to a legal claim arising from the attorney-client relationship.
Rule / Doctrine
Under DR 7-102(B) (predecessor to Model Rule 1.6(b)(5)), an attorney may reveal client confidences when disclosure is necessary to defend the attorney against a claim arising from the attorney-client relationship, such as malpractice or criminal charges related to the representation. The exception is narrow and limited to information necessary for the attorney’s own defense.
Significance
Meyerhoffer v. Empire Fire is a foundational professional responsibility case on the self-defense exception to confidentiality. It illustrates the tension between loyalty to the client and the attorney’s own legitimate interests in defending against legal charges, and is a key case for understanding the scope and limits of client confidentiality under both the old Code and the Model Rules.