TEXAS DISCIPLINARY RULES OF PROFESSIONAL CONDUCT

Attorneys bear ethical responsibilities, particularly when facing situations where clients may be involved in criminal or fraudulent activities. These obligations are outlined in Rule 1.05(e) and (f) of the Texas Disciplinary Rules of Professional Conduct (n.d.), which delineate instances necessitating mandatory disclosure that may be adverse to the client’s interests. These obligations revolve around preventing serious crimes, avoiding the attorney’s involvement in a client’s wrongdoing, and adhering to a standard that prioritizes safeguarding the well-being of all parties involved.

Rule 1.05(e) underscores that, unless the risk of death or significant physical harm is imminent, an attorney’s duty lies in dissuading clients from participating in criminal or fraudulent actions or persuading them to rectify their course of action. This approach aligns with Rule 1.02(d) and (e) (n.d.), emphasizing a lawyer’s responsibility to uphold ethical standards and protect the integrity of the legal profession.

The complexities arise from gauging the precise timing of a client’s intentions to execute criminal or fraudulent intentions. In response to this, Rule 1.05(e) requires lawyers to take action only when they possess clear information indicating the likelihood of such actions and their potential consequences. Should the evidence indicate that a client’s contemplated misconduct may lead to severe outcomes, such as death or serious injury, the lawyer must take necessary steps to prevent these grave consequences by disclosing pertinent information. However, if the projected crime or fraud is anticipated to result in less serious outcomes, such as substantial financial harm, the lawyer’s obligation shifts. While the attorney isn’t mandated to divulge preventive details, they may choose to do so, aligning with Rule 1.05(c)(7).

It’s essential to note that violations of Rule 1.05(e) may result in disciplinary action against the lawyer. However, the subsequent evaluation of whether an attorney’s decisions and actions warrant discipline considers the reasonableness of their conduct within the context of the circumstances as they were reasonably perceived at the time. This perspective emerges from the fact that Rule 1.05(e) grounds the lawyer’s affirmative duty on their reasonable perception of the situation, whereas the duty set forth in Rule 1.05(f) only activates when a lawyer has actual knowledge of their services being misused by the client. A similar approach can be observed in Rule 3.03(b) (n.d.).

Disclaimer: This is not legal advice – Always seek assistance from an Attorney.

Reference:
Texas Disciplinary Rules of Professional Conduct. (n.d.). Retrieved from https://www.txcourts.gov/media/1453540/texas-disciplinary-rules-of-professional-conduct.pdf