Q:  I read the Ethics Corners published by the Ethics Committee in 2021 related to motions to withdraw. Is there updated guidance on the information I can disclose when filing such a motion?

A:        On December 3, 2025, the American Bar Association Standing Committee on Ethics and Professional Responsibility published a formal opinion on the disclosure of information in a motion to withdraw from representation. ABA Formal Opinion 519 largely mirrors the ethics corner published by the Ethics Committee in 2021. Specifically, any required disclosure must be strictly limited to the extent reasonably necessary and, whenever possible, made through measures that protect confidentiality such as by making submissions in camera or under seal.

UPDATED ETHICS CORNER ON RULE 1.16

In 2021, the Ethics Committee published three ethics corners on withdrawal from representation under Rule 1.16. The second of those articles addressed the extent to which the attorneys’ duties of confidentiality under Rule 1.6 and candor to the Court under Rule 3.3 impacts the lawyer’s description of the circumstances underlying the motion to withdraw, particularly in instances where the motion to withdraw is triggered by the client’s violation of law or request that the attorney violate a rule of professional conduct or other law. The ethics corner outlined the attorneys’ obligation to avoid material adverse effect on the client’s interest when withdrawing and suggested best practices with respect to withdrawal motions.

OVERVIEW OF RULE 1.16

Rule 1.16 addresses both mandatory and permissive withdrawal from representation.

Withdrawal is required then the representation will result in a violation of the Rules of Professional Conduct or other law, the lawyer’s physical or mental condition materially impairs the lawyer’s ability to represent the client, the lawyer has been discharged, or the client or prospective client seeks to use or persists in using the lawyer’s services to commit or further a crime or fraud. Rule 1.16(a).

Subject to compliance with any applicable court rules, withdrawal may be permitted if it can be accomplished without material adverse effect on the client’s interests, the client persists in a course of action involving the lawyer’s services that the lawyer reasonably believes is criminal or fraudulent, the client has used the lawyer’s services to perpetuate a crime or fraud, the client insists upon taking action that the lawyer considers repugnant or with which the lawyer has a fundamental disagreement, the client failed substantially to fulfill an obligation to the lawyer and has bene given reasonable warning that the lawyer will withdraw unless the obligation is fulfilled, the representation will result in an unreasonable financial burden on the lawyer or has been rendered unreasonably difficult by the client, or other good cause for withdrawal exists. Rule 1.16(b).

OVERVIEW OF RULE 1.6

The duty of confidentiality applies to information related to the representation regardless of its source. Disclosure is permitted only if the client gives informed consent, the disclosure is impliedly authorized to carry out the representation or disclosure is permitted under Rule 1.6(b). There is no exception in Rule 1.6(b) for motions to withdraw or other pleadings. “Consequently, for some matters, merely citing a relevant provision of Rule 1.16(a) may constitute an implicit disclosure of ‘information relating to the representation.’ Providing a fuller explanation will result in an explicit and more extensive disclosure and may be harmful to the client.”  ABA Op. 519, p. 3.

MOTIONS TO WITHDRAW

ABA Opinion 519 reflects that different courts approach motions to withdraw differently.  For example, in State v. Kent, 2014 Del. Super. LEXIS 558, at *10 (Del. Super. Dec. 3, 2014), the Court found that some evidence of confidential information must be provided in support of a motion to withdraw on the basis of a conflict of interest. See Whiting v. Lacara, 187 F.3d 317 (2d Cir. 1999). On the other hand, the United States District Court for District of Hampshire found that it was appropriate for a court considering a motion to withdraw to consider in camera submissions to avoid prejudice to the client. United States v. Isaacson, 2010 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 124178 (D.N.H. 2010); see Weinberger v. Provident Life & Cas. Ins. Co., 1998 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 19859 (S.D.N.Y. Dec. 23, 1998); Commonwealth v. Miranda, 484 Mass. 799 (Mass. 2020); Blessing v. Dow Chemical Co., 521 A.2d 1176 (Me. 1987). Discipline has been imposed upon attorneys for disclosing confidential information in motions to withdraw. In Re Gonzalez, 773 A.2d 1030 (D.C. App. 2001) (lawyer disciplined under Virginia Professional Responsibility Canons for alleging in motion to withdraw that client lied to payer and failed to provide requested information); Lawyers Disciplinary Bd. v. Farber, 488 S.E.2d 460, 463 (W. Va. 1997) (lawyer disciplined for stating in motion to withdraw that client told lawyer “a flat-out lie”).

Best practices suggest that even ex parte disclosures should be limited to information required to substantiate the basis of the withdrawal motion.

PERMISSIBLE DISCLOSURES

ABA Opinion 519 describes circumstances under which disclosure may be permissible. For example, a lawyer may disclose information not related to the representation. For example, information related to their own physical or mental condition under Rule 1.16(a)(2). A lawyer may of course disclose any information the client authorizes them to disclose upon informed consent. For example, when the client discharges the attorney under Rule 1.16(a)(3). Further, there may be circumstances under which an exception to confidentiality applies under Rule 1.16(b).

Disclosure may be permitted under Rules 3.3 (Candor Toward the Tribunal), 1.13 (Organization as Client) and 1.14 (Client with Diminished Capacity). Rule 3.3(a) requires a lawyer to take remedial measures, including if necessary disclosure to the tribunal, if the client or a witness called by the lawyer offers material false evidence. Rule 1.13(c)(2) permits a lawyer representing an organization to reveal information relating to the representation if the organization’s highest authority fails to conduct that clearly violates law that the lawyer reasonably believes is likely to cause substantial injury to the organization “whether or not Rule 1.6 permits such disclosure, but only if and to the extent” the lawyer reasonably believes the disclosure is necessary to prevent substantial injury to the organization. Rule 1.14(c) allows lawyers to take protective action to aid a client with decision-making limitations who is at risk of financial or other harm.

The ABA referred to its Opinion 476, which advised that a lawyer filing a motion to withdraw being by making a formulaic reference to “professional considerations” of a similar term.  If the Court requires additional information, the attorney should ask the court’s permission to provide the information ex parte or under seal.

PROPOSED MULTI-STEP APPROACH TO WITHDRAWAL

ABA Opinion 519 proposed a multi-step approach to withdrawal. When the reasons for withdrawal are subject to Rule 1.6, and the client does not authorize the withdrawal, “disclosure of information relating to the representation will not be ‘impliedly authorized in order to carry out the representation’ under Rule 1.6(a). Even when disclosure is permitted under Rule 1.6(b) or another Rule, disclosure must be strictly limited to the extent reasonably necessary and, whenever possible, made through measures that protect confidentiality such as in camera or under seal submissions.”

The initial motion should cite only “professional considerations” or similar generic language. If further information is required, all non-frivolous claims of confidentiality should be asserted, and the narrowest information necessary to substantiate the motion should be provided. “Ultimately, the lawyer’s paramount duty is to preserve client confidentiality, even at the risk that the tribunal may deny the motion to withdraw. The Rules require that any disclosure in support of withdrawal be narrowly tailored, protective of the client’s interests, and undertaken only within the scope of an applicable exception.” ABA Formal Op. 519, p. 12.