Whether a Hollywood celebrity or a professional who is well-known in their respective industry, high-profile clients of law firms can be the focus of intense public scrutiny.

In today’s social media climate, lawyers may face a difficult decision if their clients make public statements or commit acts that are viewed as inconsistent with the firm’s own goals or culture.

Some recent news stories have reported on celebrities who made antisemitic or other inflammatory statements that created significant social and professional backlash. In these instances, a celebrity’s business partners, public relations team or agents may make public statements confirming the termination of their relationships with the celebrity or otherwise criticizing the celebrity’s conduct.

Unlike a celebrity’s corporate or business partners, however, lawyers representing that celebrity generally have unique ethical obligations that might not lend themselves to as public a breakup. For example, lawyers are generally limited in making statements that would reveal confidential information or that could materially harm a client’s legal interests.

So, what can lawyers do to maintain confidentiality, the interests of the client and the firm’s reputation in a situation in which the law firm no longer wants to represent a high-profile client? Here are some issues for lawyers to consider.

Can a Lawyer Terminate a Client Relationship?

Rule 1.16 of the American Bar Association (ABA) outlines when or why a lawyer may terminate a legal representation. The rule provides for mandatory withdrawals and permissive withdrawals.

Mandatory withdrawals are defined by the rules and are typically only triggered in limited situations, like when a client demands that a lawyer engage in conduct that is illegal (as opposed to when a client merely suggests the illegal conduct, which may not trigger mandatory withdrawal obligations).

Rule 1.16 provides several grounds supporting permissive withdrawal, i.e., those situations in which a lawyer may withdraw but is not ethically required to withdraw from a representation. These grounds include a client’s nonpayment of fees or the existence of good cause to withdraw. The key is whether withdrawal will have a materially adverse effect on the client’s interests.

Lawyers who are concerned about a client’s statements or press can consider whether such a public event constitutes “good cause” supporting withdrawal and whether such withdrawal can be managed without a “materially adverse effect” on the client.

One rule that could be relevant for lawyers reviewing offensive or inflammatory statements by clients is Rule 1.16(b)(3), which permits lawyers to seek to withdraw when “the client insists upon pursing an objective that the lawyer considers repugnant or imprudent.” Typically, this rule can be relevant when a client insists that lawyer pursues a legal strategy that the lawyer finds “repugnant or imprudent.”

But some have theorized that this language could potentially support a lawyer’s withdrawal when a client makes public statements that are offensive or discriminatory. A lawyer could argue that continuing to align with the client could be a course of conduct that the lawyer finds “repugnant or imprudent.”

Consider the Duty of Confidentiality

Deciding to part ways with a high-profile client can also implicate the duty of confidentiality.

Under Rule 1.6 of the ABA Model Rules of Professional Conduct, a lawyer’s duty to maintain confidences begins from the moment of first disclosure (including a potential client meeting, even if it yields no formal attorney-client relationship) and continues even “after the client-lawyer relationship has terminated.” (Rule 1.6, cmt. [20])

The duty of confidentiality generally applies to “all information relating to the representation, whatever its source,” which, depending on the circumstances, can even include the fact of representation itself (Rule 1.6, cmt. [3]).

Unlike a corporate partner that may be contractually permitted to release a statement upon terminating a relationship with a high-profile celebrity, lawyers have additional considerations imposed by Rule 1.6. Because the rule of confidentiality survives the attorney-client relationship, lawyers may be restricted from disclosing confidential information (which is broader than privilege) even after they withdraw from or terminate the relationship.

ABA Rule 1.16 does permit lawyers to disclose confidential information in certain situations, so the rule may provide some guidance. For example, comment [3] to the rule confirms that, even in sensitive situations, the lawyer can state that “professional considerations require termination of the representation.”

But moreover, lawyers can consider whether there is a risk that a public statement from the lawyer could negatively impact the client’s legal interests, even if such statements are technically permitted under Rule 1.6. If a lawyer’s public statement criticizing the client or explaining a withdrawal additionally creates negative press for the client, she or he could claim that the lawyer breached her or his duty of loyalty to that client.

Alternatively, if a lawyer wants to make a public statement that could implicate a client’s confidential information, the lawyer can always seek to obtain consent from their client to make such a statement.

Lawyers Have Some Choices in Picking Clients

If a withdrawal may be completed ethically, lawyers are generally free to decide to terminate relationships with clients who have offended the lawyers or the public at large.

And, separately from the scenario described above, it can be helpful to remember that lawyers are free to make decisions about what types of clients or cases they want to engage. Some firms, for example, choose to only represent one side of an industry, like insurance or energy, and choose not to take on matters that could undermine that industry (even in the absence of a legal conflict).

Other lawyers may decide to represent clients with a certain viewpoint or goal. The rules permit lawyers to make these kinds of decisions before taking on legal work.

By considering the above factors, lawyers and firms can make decisions about how to respond when a client is facing criticism within the social sphere.

Shari L. Klevens is a partner at Dentons and serves on the firm’s U.S. board of directors. She represents and advises lawyers and insurers on complex claims and is co-chair of Dentons’ global insurance sector team.

Alanna Clair is a partner at the firm and focuses on professional liability defense and complex insurance defense.

Klevens and Clair are co-authors of “Georgia Legal Malpractice Law” (2022), “District of Columbia Legal Malpractice Law” (2021) and “The Lawyer’s Handbook: Ethics Compliance and Claim Avoidance” (2013).

Valentina Urrego Poe, an associate at Dentons, contributed to this column.