Asking for Advice Without Oversharing
By Laura Popps
Every lawyer faces questions about ethics, strategy, and day-to-day dilemmas—and the answers are rarely simple. The disciplinary rules recognize that reality. Rule 1.05(c)(9)[1] allows a lawyer to disclose confidential information when it is reasonably necessary to secure legal advice about the lawyer’s ethical compliance with the rules. Similarly, Rules 1.05(d)(1) and (2)[2] permit disclosure of a client’s unprivileged confidential information when impliedly authorized to carry out the representation, or when the lawyer has reason to believe disclosure is necessary to represent the client effectively.
Popps Law & Consulting provides guidance on a wide variety of matters involving legal ethics and attorney grievance defense. Schedule an initial consultation here.
These rules give lawyers some freedom to consult informally with other lawyers for the client’s benefit without first getting express client consent. This could include online discussion groups, in-person meetings, and other settings.[3] However, it’s not a blank check. How much you share, and the way in which you share it, still matters. Handled carefully, this type of consultation is entirely proper; mishandled, it can quickly cross the line into an ethics violation.
First, remember that TDRPC 1.05 defines “confidential information” very broadly: it includes both privileged and unprivileged client information. Unprivileged client information means “all information relating to a client or furnished by the client, other than privileged information, acquired by the lawyer during the course of or by reason of the representation of the client.” When you stop to think about it, there is virtually nothing about a case or client that can be shared without a specific exception to the confidentiality rule.
Second, consider your audience. The risks of disclosure change dramatically depending on whether the setting is private or public. In a private exchange, you control who hears the information and can better judge the chance that your client could be identified or prejudiced. In an online forum, by contrast, the audience is broad and unpredictable. Lawyers often share extensive case details in these groups—so much so that, combined with their own identity, location and practice area, a client’s identity can be pieced together with little effort at times. The danger is compounded by the sheer number of people exposed and the uncertainty of who they are. What feels like a professional circle of peers is in reality an audience you don’t fully know and can’t control. Membership shifts, you can’t be certain who all is in the group, and once posted, information can be copied, shared, or even subpoenaed. There is a false sense of security in many of these online lawyer groups that could easily lead to oversharing and a resulting breach of confidentiality.
With these considerations in mind, there are several safeguards you can put in place to reduce the risk that your disclosures will breach the confidentiality rules.[4]
Keep the inquiry abstract when you can, and limit disclosure to what’s truly necessary to frame the question. Share unprivileged confidential information only to the extent needed for meaningful consultation, and not at all if the issue can be discussed without it.
When context is required, use hypotheticals. Strip any facts that could point to a specific client; most of the time these details aren’t necessary to the issue anyway. If there’s any chance what you share could be matched to a specific client and/or cause them prejudice, stop and reconsider.
Don’t reveal privileged or harmful client information without the client’s express consent. If disclosure is unavoidable, the client must be consulted about the risks, including the risk of a privilege waiver, and give their informed consent before you proceed. The only exception is the narrow carve-out in Rule 1.05(c)(9), which permits disclosure when necessary to seek legal advice about your own ethical compliance. See n. 4. supra
Honor client instructions. If a client has told you not to share confidential information, you cannot do so—even if an exception might otherwise apply.
Consider a confidentiality agreement. Ask the responding lawyer to agree to keep anything you share confidential. If that’s not feasible (as in online forums), factor the lack of such assurances into the decision of whether disclosure is in the client’s best interest.
Consulting with other lawyers is an excellent tool for working through the hard questions we all face. Just remember to approach those conversations with caution, keeping disclosures limited and client confidentiality front and center.
NOTE: This article was originally published in the November 2025 edition of Voice for the Defense, published by the Texas Criminal Defense Lawyers Association.
Laura Popps defends Texas attorneys before the State Bar, advises on legal ethics, and handles criminal appeals. A former prosecutor, Laura has been Board Certified in Criminal Law by the Texas Board of Legal Specialization since 1999. She then served for ten years as Regional Counsel at the State Bar of Texas’ Office of Chief Disciplinary Counsel before founding her own firm.
Laura can be reached at laura@poppslaw.com or (512) 865-5185.
1 Texas Disciplinary R. Prof ’l Conduct 1.05(c)(9).
2 Texas Disciplinary R. Prof ’l Conduct 1.05(d)(1), (2).
3 Tex. Comm. on Prof ’l Ethics, Op. 673 (Aug 2018).
4 These safeguards are drawn from Professional Ethics Committee Opinion 673, which addressed disclosure of unprivileged confidential information under Rules 1.05(d)(1) and (2). Rule 1.05(c)(9), adopted later, goes further by permitting disclosure of privileged information when it is reasonably necessary to obtain advice about a lawyer’s own ethical obligations. The broader reach of that rule–including how far disclosure may extend–is beyond the scope of this article.