Comparing the Two Exceptions

Rules 1.6(b)(6) and 1.6(b)(7) sit side by side in the list, yet they work in different ways. Paragraph (b)(6) permits disclosure "to comply with other law or a court order."¹ Paragraph (b)(7) permits disclosure "to detect and resolve conflicts of interest arising from the lawyer's change of employment or from changes in the composition or ownership of a firm," but only if the revealed information would not compromise the attorney-client privilege or otherwise prejudice the client.² The first answers a command that comes from outside the lawyer's practice. The second answers an administrative need that arises inside it.

That difference in trigger explains the difference in drafting. Under (b)(6), a statute or a judge supplies the occasion, and the lawyer's purpose is compliance, so the disclosure stops where compliance stops. Under (b)(7), no one has ordered anything. The lawyer or the firm chooses to disclose, and the choice could run anywhere from a bare list of client names to a full account of each client's affairs. Because no outside authority limits the choice, the text limits it from within, through the privilege-and-prejudice proviso.

Two features still unite the exceptions, because both belong to the paragraph (b) family. Each is permissive, so it allows the disclosure without demanding it. Each also reaches only as far as the lawyer reasonably believes necessary to accomplish its purpose.³ Anything beyond that purpose is an ordinary breach of confidentiality as to the excess, and over-disclosure can subject the lawyer to discipline. Anchor an answer on what the exception says, either compliance with law or an order or detection and resolution of conflicts, and treat the paragraph number as a convenience.

Exam questions usually pair a real exception with facts that fail it.

The lawyer made two mistakes, and the two exceptions are built to catch both. The first was treating a request as compulsion, when an inquiry from someone who merely wants the information carries no legal force. The second was disclosing far more than the exception's purpose required. A fixed sequence of questions exposes both mistakes in any fact pattern.

Exam Analysis Steps

Because the exceptions differ in trigger but share a ceiling, one decision sequence handles both. The steps are these:

Identify exactly what information would be revealed and who would receive it, since every later step depends on its content and its recipient.
Identify the source of authority for disclosure. A statute, regulation, or court order points to (b)(6). A change of employment, or of a firm's composition or ownership, with conflict detection as the purpose points to (b)(7). If neither is present, the lawyer needs the client's informed consent, implied authorization, or some other enumerated exception.⁴
Test the trigger against the text. Ask whether an outside law or order actually compels the disclosure under (b)(6), or whether the purpose really is conflict detection under (b)(7).
Apply the necessity limit by revealing only what the lawyer reasonably believes necessary. Under (b)(6) that is whatever the law or order demands. Under (b)(7) it is usually client identities, the general nature of matters, and the lawyer's role.
For (b)(7), apply the proviso by confirming that the disclosure would neither compromise the attorney-client privilege nor otherwise prejudice the client. If it would, shrink the disclosure or obtain the client's informed consent.

Most points are lost at step three or step four. A bare request treated as compulsion fails step three. A report that adds the memo the statute never asked for, or the strategy a conflict check never needed, fails step four. Step five applies only to (b)(7), because (b)(6) relies on the compelling authority and the necessity limit instead of a proviso.

The last trap is confusing the duty of confidentiality with the attorney-client privilege. Confidentiality covers all information relating to the representation, including facts learned from sources other than the client. The privilege covers a narrower set of communications between lawyer and client.⁵ The two interact differently in each exception. Under (b)(6), a lawyer who reasons that information is not privileged and may therefore be volunteered has skipped step two, because the exception needs a real command. Under (b)(7), the privilege is a named limit, and the words "or otherwise prejudice" keep information outside the privilege protected whenever sharing it would hurt the client.

Comparing the Two Exceptions

Endnotes8