Purcell v. District Attorney
Citation and Court
676 N.E.2d 436 (Mass. 1997), Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts
Facts
An attorney represented a client on arson charges. During the representation, the client told the attorney that he intended to burn down a vacant building. The attorney notified the police, who questioned the client but found no crime had yet occurred. The attorney then sought a ruling on whether he was required or permitted to disclose the client’s stated future criminal intent. The client had not yet committed the threatened arson.
Issue
Whether an attorney is required or permitted to disclose a client’s stated intention to commit arson of a vacant building in the future.
Holding
The Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts held that the attorney was not permitted to disclose the client’s statement because the threatened crime — arson of a vacant building — did not present a substantial risk of death or serious bodily injury to any person, and therefore did not fall within the exception to the duty of confidentiality for future crimes.
Rule / Doctrine
Under Massachusetts professional responsibility rules (tracking Model Rule 1.6 as it then stood), an attorney may disclose confidential information to prevent a client’s future crime only if the crime is likely to result in death or substantial bodily harm. Crimes against property, including arson of an unoccupied building, do not satisfy this threshold, even if the crime itself is serious, because the exception is limited to threats to human life and safety.
Significance
Purcell v. District Attorney is the leading case illustrating the strict limits of the future crime exception to confidentiality in jurisdictions that limit it to crimes involving death or serious bodily harm. It is regularly contrasted with the broader exception in Model Rule 1.6(b)(1) (as amended in 2003) and with states that permit but do not require disclosure in a wider range of future crime scenarios.