Lane's Case

Summary

The New Hampshire Supreme Court reviewed professional-conduct charges against attorney Kendall W. Lane arising from his disclosure of information concerning a former client's estate and trust matters. The court applied the version of New Hampshire Rule of Professional Conduct 1.9 in effect in 1996, held that the disciplinary committee proved a violation relating to disclosure of life-insurance information unless justified under Rule 1.6, and considered whether Lane reasonably believed disclosure was necessary to prevent financial harm or criminal conduct.

Holdings

1. The committee failed to prove by clear and convincing evidence that Lane used information relating to the former representation to the disadvantage of Dick Bennett or the estate.
2. The committee failed to prove by clear and convincing evidence that Lane intentionally made a false or misleading representation in violation of Rule 8.4(c).
3. Lane used information relating to his former representation of Dick Bennett to Dick Bennett's disadvantage, thereby establishing a Rule 1.9(b) violation unless the disclosure was authorized by Rule 1.6.
4. The attorney asserting a Rule 1.6 exception to former Rule 1.9(b) bears the burden of proving the exception by a preponderance of the evidence.
5. Lane proved by a preponderance of the evidence that Rule 1.6(b) permitted the disclosure because he reasonably believed it necessary to prevent future criminal activity likely to cause substantial injury to Jane Bennett's financial interests or property.
6. Rule 3.3(a)(3) did not apply because it was not an exception included in the version of Rule 1.9 applicable in 1996, and the court did not reach whether RSA 311:6 authorized the conduct because Rule 1.6(b) already justified the disclosure.

Questions Presented

1. Whether Lane violated former New Hampshire Professional Rule of Conduct 1.9(b) by giving an attorney a copy of an estate accounting.
2. Whether Lane violated Rule 8.4(c) by stating to John Hancock that his firm represented Robert Bennett's estate.
3. Whether Lane violated former Rule 1.9(b) by disclosing evidence of the John Hancock life-insurance policy and proceeds to an attorney adverse to his former client.
4. Whether the disclosure of the life-insurance evidence was permitted under Rule 1.6(b), and which party bore the burden and level of proof on that exception.
5. Whether Rule 3.3(a)(3) or RSA 311:6 independently authorized Lane's disclosure.

Disposition

denied