When Ethics Collide: Withdrawal Motions and the Duty of Confidentiality
By Laura Popps
If you’ve ever tried to withdraw from a case, you know the process isn’t always as straightforward as it should be. On the TCDLA Ethics Committee, one issue we encounter frequently is what to do when a court wants more information about why a lawyer seeks to withdraw. It’s a familiar scenario: the lawyer moves to withdraw for reasons that can’t be detailed in the motion, but the court pushes back, finding the motion’s vague justifications unconvincing and asking for more specificity. The challenge becomes even greater when the ethics rules require withdrawal but, at the same time, forbid the lawyer from revealing the confidential information that necessitates it.¹
ABA Formal Opinion 519 seeks to tackle this challenge. And while Texas’ confidentiality rules are not identical to the ABA’s, the opinion’s approach is instructive and offers a useful framework for handling withdrawal motions while protecting client information.
Popps Law & Consulting provides guidance on a wide variety of matters involving legal ethics and attorney grievance defense. Schedule an initial consultation here.
To begin, Opinion 519 underscores that disclosures to a court are subject to the same confidentiality rules as disclosures to anyone else outside the attorney–client relationship. Although a court may appear to grant permission, or even exert pressure, a lawyer may not depart from confidentiality rules on that basis alone. There is no exception in the rules that allows a lawyer to reveal confidential information simply because the court is asking.
There are only two circumstances in which confidential information may be shared: (1) when the client gives informed consent, and (2) when an express exception to the confidentiality rule applies. Often, a client will not consent to the disclosure of confidential information in this context, which means the lawyer may not reveal it unless explicitly permitted by one of the rule-based exceptions.
One such exception recognized in both the Model Rules and the Texas Disciplinary Rules is disclosure required to comply with a court order—that is, when the court expressly directs the lawyer to reveal confidential information in support of the motion. Texas provides an additional exception when a lawyer reasonably believes disclosure is necessary to comply with a disciplinary rule. This may offer Texas lawyers slightly more latitude in limited situations, but it does not open the door to broad disclosures. Regardless of whether an exception applies, any disclosure must be “strictly limited to the extent reasonably necessary” and, whenever possible, made in a manner that protects confidentiality, such as by making submissions in camera or under seal.²
What happens, then, when a judge wants more detail before ruling on a motion to withdraw but stops short of ordering disclosure? And what if the disciplinary rules require withdrawal, yet the court refuses to grant it without information the lawyer cannot ethically reveal? Opinion 519 confronts this dilemma directly, and its conclusion is unequivocal: the duty of confidentiality prevails. This can place the lawyer in an untenable position. Recognizing this reality, the authors suggest that at least in some situations, when a court denies the motion and requires continued representation, the lawyer should not be subject to discipline for violating another rule.
The opinion provides a roadmap for how to handle these situations:
File a motion that does not reveal any confidential information but references professional obligations or irreconcilable differences as the basis for withdrawal;
If the court wants more information, try to persuade the judge to rule on the motion without requiring you to disclose confidential client information (sometimes just a reminder is enough) and explain why disclosure is not permitted under the rules and attorney-client privilege considerations;
If that doesn’t work and the court orders you to provide more information, then you can disclose additional facts, but only what is reasonably necessary to comply with the order, and only in the most protective way possible, such as in camera or under seal;
If the court threatens to deny your motion unless you volunteer more detail—but stops short of ordering disclosure—you must hold the line. The duty of confidentiality still controls. In that moment, you should remind the court that you cannot disclose protected information without an order, and request that any required disclosure be strictly limited to what is necessary and be conducted in camera or under seal so as to minimize the risk to the client.
In short, Opinion 519 reinforces principles we all know but that can get blurred in the pressure of a difficult withdrawal: protect confidentiality, disclose only when truly required, and only provide additional detail when the rules clearly allow it. Even difficult withdrawal situations can be managed appropriately by staying anchored in those fundamentals.
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 1.16(a).
2 ABA Formal Op. 519 (2025).