Member Login
On Demand
Classifieds
Insurance
My Resources
My Practice Areas
Update Address
E-mail Preferences
My On Demand
My ePublications
My Classifieds
Member Card
Need a Lawyer?
Casemaker
Home
Membership
Member Benefits
Join/Renew Online
Dues Structure and Rates
Print an Application
Special Promotions
FAQs
Member Groups
Sections
Access to Justice
Business Law
Civil Litigation
Criminal Justice
Family Law
General Practice, Solo & Small Firm
Health Law
Immigration Law
Individual Rights & Responsibilities
Judicial Administration
Juvenile & Child Welfare
Labor & Employment
Law Practice Management
Probate Law
Property Law
Public Law
Taxation Law
Section/Division Registration
Practice Groups
Divisions
Young Lawyers Division
Committees & Task Forces
Alternative Dispute Resolution Committee
Amicus Curiae Committee
Appellate Bench Bar Committee
Budget & Finance Committee
Centennial Commission
Crisis in Court Funding Task Force
Diversity Task Force
Drug Policy Task Force
Education Committee
Executive Management Board
Fair and Impartial Judiciary Strike Force
Fee Arbitration Board Committee
Governance Committee
Insurance Committee
Joint Alimony Task Force
Joint Bar Committee
Joint Foreclosure Legislative Task Force
Law Day Task Force
Lawyer Referral Service Committee
Lawyers in Transition Committee
Massachusetts Law Review Editorial Board
MBA Task Force on Minimum Mandatory CLE
MBA Technology Implementation Task Force
Membership Committee
Mock Trial Committee
Peremptory Challenges Task Force
Plain English Jury Instruction Task Force
Technology Implementation Task Force
Volunteer Recognition, Recruitment and Retention Task Force
Workplace Safety Task Force
CLE
MBA On Demand
CLE Programs
CLE Publications
Massachusetts Bar Institute
Events
Calendar
Event Form
2012 Annual Dinner
2012 Annual Dinner Sponsors
For Attorneys
Casemaker
Professional Development
Volunteer Opportunities
Forums
Affiliated Bar Services
Alternative Dispute Resolution
Public Service Fund
Ethical Inquiries
Fee Arbitration
Judicial Evaluations
Lawyer Referral Service
Mentor Program
Mentor Circles
Survey Results
Uniform Probate Code
Publications
Guide to the Massachusetts Judicial Selection Process
e-Journal
Ethics Opinions
Lawyers Journal
Massachusetts Law Review
Section Review
Judicial Preference Guide
Submission Guidelines
Legislative Activities
MBA Reports
MUPC
The Legislative Process
Glossary of Legislative Terms
MBA Positions
Contacting Key Legislators
Section Council Legislative Procedures
Joint Bar Committee
Legislative Hearings
MBA memo on Senate Bill No. 2210
About the MBA
MBA Leadership
Centennial
Initiatives
Press Room
Employees of the MBA
Mass Bar Foundation
Mass Bar Insurance
Office Locations
MBA Bylaws
Advertising with the MBA
For the Public
Need a Lawyer?
FAQs
Helpful Links
Public Service Fund
Public Information
Career Awareness
Law-Related Education
Publications
Guide to the Massachusetts Judicial Selection Process
e-Journal
Ethics Opinions
Lawyers Journal
Massachusetts Law Review
Section Review
Judicial Preference Guide
Submission Guidelines
Ethics Opinions
2010-2019
2000-2009
1990-1999
1980-1989
1973-1979
Search
1980-1989
1989
1988
1987
1986
1985
1983
1982
1981
1980
1989
Opinion No 89-4
Opinion No 89-3
Opinion No 89-2
Opinion No 89-1
1989
Opinion No. 89-4
Summary:
A city solicitor may give advice to a city employee with respect to proposed action by the city against a private party notwithstanding the fact that a new attorney in his office formerly represented the private party. If the new attorney represented the private party on a substantially related matter or has relevant confidences or secrets of the private party, then that attorney is personally disqualified. The city solicitor, however, may advise the city employee provided that the new attorney is screened off from any participation in the proposed action. If the new attorney did not represent the private party in a substantially related matter and has no relevant confidences or secrets, then neither the new attorney nor the solicitor is barred from advising the city employee.
Opinion No. 89-3
Summary:
A lawyer may disclose to an independent billing service the information necessary to send a bill for services rendered to a client. If that information includes confidences or secrets of a client, it is the lawyer's responsibility under DR 4-101(D) to make sure that the service neither discloses nor uses such information for any other purpose.
Opinion No. 89-2
Summary:
Under DR 5-105, a municipal planning board may be a current client of Town Counsel where Counsel advises the board on a "fairly regular though not frequent" basis, even though he is not handling a matter for it at the present moment. Nevertheless, Town Counsel may represent the town's board of selectmen in opposing an appeal prosecuted by the planning board without obtaining the planning board's consent.
Opinion No. 89-1
Summary:
In a civil case, a lawyer who learns from a confidential client communication that a client intends to commit perjury or some other crime has discretion under DR 4-101(C)(3) to reveal the client's intention and the information necessary to prevent the perjury or other crime even if such disclosure makes it clear that the client has already committed perjury during depositions. In addition, the lawyer has the obligation under DR 7-102(B)(l) to reveal any fraud committed by the client during the course of representation through perjury unless the information is protected as a "privileged communication." Information that a lawyer has discretion to reveal under DR 4-101(C)(3) is not protected as a "privileged communication" and must therefore be revealed. If the lawyer does not know of any future crime that client intends to commit, the lawyer must not disclose the client's past perjury committed during depositions, but the lawyer must withdraw to avoid violating DR 7-102(A)(7).
©2012 Massachusetts Bar Association