Rule 1.6 requires lawyers to keep client information confidential unless the client provides informed consent to disclose

Confidentiality at the heart of a trusted relationship

Picture this: a client sits down with a lawyer, pouring out details that would feel risky to share with anyone else. The stakes feel personal, and the client needs to know that what’s said in that room stays in that room. That trust isn’t just nice to have—it’s the backbone of how lawyers practice and how clients stay honest and open. In the Model Rules of Professional Conduct, Rule 1.6 acts like a shield for that trust. It says, plainly, that a lawyer must keep information related to the representation private unless the client gives informed consent to disclose. No caveats, no loopholes—at least not in a broad sense. The rule is built to encourage candor, which ultimately helps lawyers give better, more precise advice.

Rule 1.6 in plain terms

Let me explain it in one sentence: a lawyer cannot reveal information about the client’s case unless the client agrees to disclosure after being fully informed about the consequences. It’s not about secrecy for secrecy’s sake; it’s about ensuring the client can speak freely, knowing the details won’t be tossed into the wind without a good reason. When a client knows confidentiality is guaranteed, they’re more likely to share all the facts, even the messy ones. And that full picture is what a lawyer needs to spot the real issues, weigh the options, and give sound counsel.

Why confidentiality matters so much

There’s a practical reason we call this a cornerstone. If clients fear exposure of sensitive information—whether it’s about business strategies, personal history, or potential mistakes—they’ll pull back or spin the truth. That’s not just ethically dicey; it’s legally dangerous. The attorney-client relationship thrives on honesty, and honesty thrives in a space of safety. Think of confidentiality as the quiet room where truth can do its work.

Informed consent: what it means in practice

You’ll see the phrase “informed consent” pop up a lot in these discussions. It isn’t a form you sign and file away; it’s a process. Here’s what it typically involves:

• Clear explanation of what could be disclosed.

• Why the disclosure might be necessary.

• The potential consequences of disclosure for the client.

• An opportunity for the client to agree or refuse, with an understanding of those consequences.

Only after this dialogue does disclosure become permissible. If the client says “yes” to sharing a particular piece of information, that consent should be specific, informed, and voluntary. The lawyer’s job is to document that consent and to respect any limitations the client places on the disclosure.

Implied authorization and the practical side of carrying out the representation

There’s also a concept called implied authorization. If a lawyer takes steps that are reasonably necessary to carry out the representation—drafting a brief, coordinating with a paralegal, communicating with opposing counsel—those actions can involve information sharing inside the firm or with others who are essential to the case. It’s not a free-for-all; it’s a narrowly drawn permission that flows from the client-lawyer relationship itself. Still, if something goes beyond what’s reasonably necessary to represent, the lawyer should seek explicit consent.

Limited exceptions to confidentiality

No rule is absolute in a vacuum, and Rule 1.6 isn’t either. There are circumstances where disclosure is allowed or required without obtaining prior consent. These are tightly circumscribed and designed to balance competing interests. Some of the common touchpoints include:

• Preventing serious harm: if disclosing information is necessary to prevent reasonably certain death or substantial bodily harm, the lawyer may disclose what’s needed to avert that danger.

• Legal compliance and court orders: a lawyer may be compelled to reveal information when required by law or by a court order.

• Addressing ongoing wrongdoing in limited ways: in some situations, a lawyer may reveal information to prevent, mitigate, or rectify substantial financial harm caused by a client’s illegal conduct, but this is highly case-specific and bounded by the rule’s terms.

The important takeaway is that these exceptions are not broad permissions to overshare. They’re carefully gated by risk, necessity, and the ethical duty to avoid helping a client commit or cover up wrongdoing.

Common misconceptions students often stumble over

Here are a few misperceptions worth clearing up, so you’re not tripped up by those exam-style traps or a quick ethics discussion in class:

• “Disclose everything to the court.” Not true. The default is to keep information confidential unless there’s consent or a narrowly framed exception that applies.

• “Share with partners or colleagues without consent.” Not unless those individuals are necessary to carrying out the representation and within the bounds of implied authorization. Outside that circle, disclosure isn’t okay.

• “Confidentiality covers everything.” The rule is broad, but it’s not absolute. The allowed disclosures are limited and carefully defined.

• “Confidentiality is only about private documents.” It also covers conversations, emails, records, or anything that relates to the representation.

Real-world implications beyond the classroom

Confidentiality isn’t a dry academic concept; it shapes everyday practice. Here are a few practical threads you’ll encounter in real life:

• Secure communications: lawyers routinely use encrypted email, secure portals, and careful handling of documents. A knock-it-out-of-the-park data-disclosure policy isn’t just nice—it’s essential.

• Inside the firm: many people can be “read” into a case to help move it along, but only those who need to know should be involved. It’s about minimal necessary exposure.

• Client education: good lawyers explain confidentiality and its limits at the outset—how information is stored, who can see it, and what would trigger a consent or disclosure.

• Ethical dilemmas: sometimes a case presents a tough choice where preserving confidentiality can clash with other duties, like preventing harm. Those moments require careful judgment and often consultation with ethics resources within the firm or state bar.

A quick mental model you can carry with you

If you’re trying to keep Rule 1.6 straight in your head, here’s a simple, memorable framework:

• Default: keep it secret. Information related to the representation stays confidential.

• Trigger for disclosure: client consent after being fully informed.

• Authorized sharing: only when it’s necessary to carry out the representation or when the rule or law requires disclosure.

• Narrow exceptions: only for specified, serious situations (like preventing harm) and never as a free pass to spill details.

This isn’t a rigid checklist; it’s a way to think about what you would do in a real moment when a client shares something sensitive.

Bringing it back to the bigger picture

Confidentiality isn’t merely about avoiding a timeout on a disclosure. It’s about creating a space where clients can reveal everything they know, warts and all, so the lawyer can see the full landscape. The trust that grows from that dynamic makes it possible to give clear, effective advice, prepare solid strategies, and advocate with conviction. When clients feel safe, they’re better able to participate in the process, which, in turn, helps the legal system function more fairly and efficiently.

A few practical takeaways if you’re studying this topic

• Remember Rule 1.6 is the default mode: keep information confidential unless the client authorizes disclosure.

• Distinguish between consent and the narrow exceptions. Don’t assume a disclosure is permissible just because it seems convenient.

• Practice the language: “informed consent” isn’t just a form; it’s a documented conversation about risks and consequences.

• Consider the everyday application: think about how this rule guides secure communications, internal sharing, and how you’d explain confidentiality to a client.

• When in doubt, seek guidance. Ethics opinions, guardians, or a mentor can help you reason through tricky situations.

A final thought

Confidentiality is more than a rule on a page. It’s a promise that underpins the whole attorney-client relationship. It’s the quiet confidence that lets clients share the details that matter most, the kind of information that, if kept safe, can make the difference between a good outcome and a missed opportunity. So next time you hear Rule 1.6 discussed, think not just about the letter of the rule but about the trust it upholds and the practical steps that keep that trust alive in the real world. After all, lawyering at its best is less about clever arguments and more about creating a safe space where truth can be told—and protected.