Background 

Mr G was instructed to act for Ms A in a matter relating to her business.  

Sometime into the retainer, Ms A received a phone call from a family member asking about the progress of the case. Ms A had not disclosed the business issue and did not know how they had this information. She discovered that her former husband had discussed the issue with her relatives, having heard about it from Mr G.  

Ms A wrote to Mr G about the matter, expressing her concern. Mr G explained that he had known her former husband for many years and, during an interaction, disclosed that he had been instructed to act for Ms A in relation to her business. He explained that he did not mention any details of the ‘rights or wrongs of the position’ and did not consider himself to have disclosed any confidential information.   

Ms A complained that Mr G had breached his duty of confidentiality when he told her former husband that he was acting for her business.  

Duty to protect and hold in strict confidence all information 

The Committee considered rule 8 of the RCCC, which provides that lawyers have a duty to protect and hold in strict confidence all information concerning: 

The Committee drew its attention to the footnote of rule 8, which provides that “information acquired in the course of the professional relationship that may be widely known or a matter of public record ... will nevertheless be confidential information.” 

The Committee noted that Mr G disclosed the existence of the retainer and the matter in respect of which he was acting. By his own admission, Mr G accepted that he told Ms A’s former husband that he was representing her in relation to a business matter.  

The Committee disagreed with Mr G’s stance that he did not disclose any inappropriate information and confirmed that the mere fact that a lawyer is acting for a person is, in itself, confidential information. The Committee was clear in its view that the disclosure to Ms A’s former husband was a breach of rule 8 of the RCCC. The fact that Mr G had not mentioned the ‘rights or wrongs’ did not erase the breach or the fact that he had engaged in unsatisfactory conduct.  

The Committee wished to emphasise that, even if the information had been in the public domain, the footnote of rule 8 makes it clear that this still would have been a breach.  

Penalty  

The Committee identified two aggravating factors to the complaint. The first was that Mr G was a long-standing practitioner and did not realise that his actions were a breach of confidentiality. The second was that he lacked remorse.  

Ms A sought compensation for hurt and humiliation. The Committee acknowledged that she was mortified by the confrontation by her family about the business matter. Ms A explained that the experience was already stressful and the disclosure of her confidential information compounded this, which the Committee accepted.  

The Committee considered that compensation of $5,000 was appropriate alongside a fine of $3,000 and costs of $1,000. The Committee also directed Mr G to provide a formal letter of apology and urged him to reflect carefully on his conduct and the effect it had on Ms A at a challenging time.