Legal Question in Legal Ethics in Maryland

Re: Communicable Disease

I appreciate your candor with presenting a question that is part of your curriculum. Students have found Lawguru and use it as a crutch. I have taken appropriate action. Your question is posed in a manner that makes clear that you have researched the question, which you have not recited verbatim.

Here is my position on you academic question. Rule 1.6(b)(1) requires a breach of confidentiality where the attorney has a reasonable belief that disclosure (and breach of confidentiality) is necessary to thwart grevious harm to another person.

Rule 1.6 is tempered by HIPPA which, as federal law, pre-empts state law. You may want to look futher at HIPPA.

Speaking to Maryland Rules, an attorney has an ethical obligation to act where he/she believes that another person "intends" to cause mortal harm upon another. Thus, if a client were to articulate a manifest plan or design then an obligation would lie. However, there is an issue of certainty with the intent as well as an ability of a client to reasonably conclude the plan or intent.

The law is moving to catch up with the current trends with life threatening diseases which can reasonably be transmitted with a minor intent. You may want to look closer at Maryland law which addresses defamation in earlier times when communicable diseases were not deadly.

Another way to look at this is whether an assualt is deadly where a such a disease is involved.

Lastly you may want to consider a physician's obligation pursuant to DHMH-1140 and the new law that went into effect this year. One could say that a physican has a greater obligation for privacy than an attorney; however, Rule 1.6 has much to do with a reasonable belief concerning the intent of the client.

I've given you a few research pointers. Once again, I appreciate your honesty with presenting your question as a school project.