Under Rule 1.6(c)(4) of the Pennsylvania Rules of Professional Conduct — and similar rules in many states — a lawyer may disclose confidential client information “to the extent the lawyer reasonably believes necessary” to defend against criminal charges, civil claims, or disciplinary actions arising from allegations of misconduct.
In other words, if a client sues for malpractice or accuses her former counsel of misconduct, the lawyer can reveal confidential communications — but only those strictly necessary to defend themselves.
This is not, of course, an invitation to expose our client’s secrets. Indeed, courts have consistently stressed that such disclosures must be limited, proportional, and directly relevant to the defense. The rule aims to balance two core values: protecting client confidentiality and preserving a lawyer’s right to defend their integrity.
A key case illustrating this principle is Perelman v. Perelman, 259 A.3d 1000 (Pa. Super. Ct. 2021). There, the Pennsylvania Superior Court upheld a law firm’s selective disclosure of privileged communications in response to a wrongful use of civil proceedings claim. The court ruled that the firm acted within Rule 1.6(c)(4) by disclosing only what was necessary to show their ethical compliance, without waiving the broader protections of privilege.
Importantly, the court clarified that only the client can waive privilege, and as such the attorney’s limited disclosure for self-defense did not open the door to broader discovery of otherwise inaccessible materials.
This exception underscores a fundamental truth: fairness must run both ways. Clients deserve confidentiality, but lawyers deserve the right to defend themselves. When used judiciously, Rule 1.6(c)(4) protects both the sanctity of client confidences and the lawyer’s right to defend their professional reputation.
