The Model Rules require that any disclosure in support of withdrawal be narrowly tailored, protective of the client’s interests, and undertaken only within the scope of an applicable exception.

Unless an explicit exception to the duty of confidentiality applies or the client provides informed consent, the lawyer may not reveal “information relating to the representation” in support of a withdrawal motion.

Disclosure of information relating to the representation is not “impliedly authorized in order to carry out the representation” under Rule 1.6(a) or otherwise impliedly authorized even when Rule 1.16(a) requires the lawyer to seek to withdraw.

If disclosure is permitted by an exception to the duty of confidentiality, such as when disclosure is required by a court order, it must be strictly limited to the extent reasonably necessary and, whenever possible, made through measures that protect confidentiality such as by making submissions in camera or under seal.

When a lawyer moves to withdraw for non-payment of the lawyer’s fees as permitted by Rule 1.6(b)(5), the lawyer may disclose information relating to the representation to the extent reasonably necessary to obtain the tribunal’s permission to terminate the representation based on nonpayment. ABA Formal Opinion No. 476 explained that when judges rule on motions to withdraw for nonpayment of legal fees, they sometimes expect lawyers to explain the basis for the motion. Judicial decisions recite detailed information provided by moving lawyers about the money owed, the legal services performed, and other related facts. The decisions cited by Opinion 476 demonstrate “that these courts found such details pertinent to their assessment of the motions.” The Opinion, however, was limited to the specific circumstance in which “a judge has sought additional information in support of a motion to withdraw for failure to pay fees.” The Opinion explained that “Rule 1.6(b)(5) authorizes the lawyer to disclose information regarding the representation of the client that is limited to the extent reasonably necessary to respond to the court’s inquiry and in support of that motion to withdraw.”

Rules 3.3, 1.13 and 1.14 expressly permit or require disclosure of information relating to the representation and may conceivably permit disclosures in support of a withdrawal motion in specific circumstances. Rule 3.3(a) provides: “If a lawyer, the lawyer’s client, or a witness called by the lawyer, has offered material evidence and the lawyer comes to know of its falsity, the lawyer shall take reasonable remedial measures, including, if necessary, disclosure to the tribunal.” Rule 1.13(c)(2) permits a lawyer representing an organization to reveal information relating to the representation if the organization’s highest authority fails to address an act, or refusal to act, that is clearly a violation of law that the lawyer reasonably believes is reasonably certain to cause substantial injury to the organization “whether or not Rule 1.6 permits such disclosure, but only if and to the extent” the lawyer reasonably believes the disclosure is necessary to prevent substantial injury to the organization. Rule 1.14(c) allows lawyers to take protective action to aid a client with decision-making limitations who is at risk of financial or other harm. If the requirements of these rules are otherwise satisfied, they may authorize disclosure in the context of withdrawal.

When the client does not give informed consent to disclosing information relating to the representation in support of a motion to withdraw, and there is no applicable exception to the duty of confidentiality, lawyers should proceed in stages:

(1) initially submit a motion providing no confidential client information apart from a reference to “professional considerations” or “irreconcilable differences”;

(2) upon being informed by the court that further information is necessary, respond, when practicable, by seeking to persuade the court to rule on the motion without requiring the disclosure of confidential client information, asserting all nonfrivolous claims for maintaining confidentiality consistent with Rule 1.6(a) and for protecting the attorney-client privilege;

(3) if that fails and the lawyer is nonetheless ordered to submit information by the court—thereby invoking Rule 1.6(b)(6)’s exception—do so only to the extent “reasonably necessary” to satisfy the needs of the court and preferably by whatever restricted means of submission are available, such as in camera review, under seal, or such other procedures designated to minimize disclosure as the court determines is appropriate; and

(4) if the court does not order the lawyer to disclose but states that the motion to withdraw will be denied unless the lawyer provides more information, the lawyer remains bound by the duty of confidentiality and should remind the judge that, absent an order from the court, the lawyer is obligated under Rule 1.6 to maintain the confidentiality of the information. In doing so, the lawyer should also request that, if the court does order the lawyer to disclose, the court require the lawyer to disclose only so much information protected by Rule 1.6 as is necessary and allow the lawyer to make those disclosures in camera or submitted under seal so as to minimize harm to client’s interests.

Ultimately, the lawyer’s paramount duty is to preserve client confidentiality, even at the risk that the tribunal may deny the motion to withdraw.

 

ABA Formal Opinion No. 519 (Dec. 3, 2025).