“Lawyer’s Duty to Inform Judge of Basis for Possible Recusal” —
- “Q: Dear Ethics Lawyer, I am counsel in a case involving a web of corporate parties on each side. I now have information that our judge’s adult children own a substantial interest in a two of the parties. I do not know whether the judge or counsel for the opposing parties is aware of this. I like this judge and am not anxious to secure his recusal, but do I have an obligation to disclose my knowledge of this to anyone?”
- A: This subject is the topic of ABA Formal Op. 522 (April 8, 2026), which opines that Model Rule 8.4(d), which prohibits a lawyer from engaging in conduct that is prejudicial to the administration of justice, requires a lawyer, as an officer of the court, to disclose information that the lawyer knows is reasonably likely to give rise to a judicial disqualification obligation. Ordinarily, the disclosure should be made to the tribunal, but in certain limited circumstances, disclosure could be required to be made to a Chief Judge or higher authority if it appears that relevant judge is ignoring their obligation to consider the matter. The opinion describes several hypothetical situations that might require action, in the nature of ‘familial and significant personal relationships with parties or lawyers in an action, economic interests implicated by the action, and extrajudicial knowledge of or involvement in the events underlying the action.”
- “Any disclosure obligation of the lawyer in this situation, as in many contexts, is subject to the lawyer’s obligation of confidentiality to the lawyer’s client under Rule 1.6. If the lawyer learned the facts that would otherwise give rise to a disclosure obligation only from a client, or another context relating to the relationship that would make the information subject to Rule 1.6 protection, then notwithstanding Model Rule 8.4(d), the lawyer may not make the disclosure without consent of the client. However, this limitation itself is subject to exceptions when the lawyer reasonably believes that disclosure is necessary ‘to comply with other law’ (see Rule 1.6(b)(6)), or as part of Rule 3.3(b)’s requirement for candor to the tribunal when that rule requires ‘reasonable remedial measures, including, if necessary, disclosure to the tribunal.’ Formal Op. 522 at 6.”
- “While the opinion arguably deals with a relatively narrow subject, it does also contain a useful discussion of other circumstances in which a lawyer has an obligation to make a disclosure to the court to ensure procedural fairness and avoid conduct prejudicial to the administration of justice. For example, the opinion addresses the lawyer’s disclosure obligation when a party has died or when facts have arisen or become known that render the jurisdiction of the court defective. In other circumstances, the lawyer has no comparable obligation. For example, the lawyer has no duty to disclose the passing of a statute of limitations that an opposing party must raise as an affirmative defense, or to present relevant contrary evidence that an opposing party simply did not exercise diligence to gather (other than in an ex parte proceeding). Id. at 5-6. The lawyer’s ‘officer of the court’ role, somewhat in tension with the lawyer’s client advocacy role, is limited to matters that affect the overall integrity and fairness of the judicial process in which advocates operate.”
David Kluft asks: “Are my dad’s former client conflicts imputed to me?” —
- “In 2025, a lawyer appeared in a bankruptcy proceeding on behalf of a debtor. Two creditors moved to disqualify him on the grounds that the lawyer’s father (a partner at the same firm) had previously represented them in various matters, including their own bankruptcy matters between 1997 and 2001, plus there was some sort of continuing attorney client relationship with the father through 2010.”
- “When the judge asked the creditors how the matters were ‘substantially related,’ they answered: ‘they’re both bankruptcies.’”
- “The Court denied the motion to disqualify because the prior representation ended 10 or 20 years ago, and none of the debts or relationships in the prior case overlapped with the current matter. Also, even though the lawyer’s father knew about the creditors finances from the prior bankruptcies, ‘assets and liabilities are required to be disclosed in bankruptcy schedules, so they are not confidential.’”
- Decision: here.
“Florida Law Firm Data Breach Affects 65,000 Individuals” —
- “A cyberattack at the law firm GrayRobinson has affected 65,000 individuals. Data breaches have also been announced by C2N Diagnostics in Missouri and Virta Health and Virta Medical in Colorado.”
GrayRobinson” - “The Orlando, Florida-based law firm GrayRobinson, P.A., has notified the Maine Attorney General about a data breach affecting 65,113 individuals, including 52 Maine residents. Among those individuals, 54,131 people had their protected health information exposed in the incident. In its substitute data breach notice, GrayRobinson explained that unauthorized access to its network was detected on or around March 24, 2025. Immediate steps were taken to secure its network, and assisted by third-party cybersecurity specialists, the incident was investigated to determine the extent to which sensitive information had been compromised.”
- “The investigation confirmed that its network was accessed by an unauthorized third party between March 5, 2025, and March 24, 2025, and during that time, files containing personal and protected health information were exfiltrated from its network. The data was reviewed, and on April 13, 2026, the file review concluded and determined that full names, dates of birth, Social Security numbers, driver’s license numbers, state and government ID numbers, financial account information, medical information, and health insurance information were involved.”
- “GrayRobinson said it had taken many precautions to protect against unauthorized access to its systems and data, and continually evaluates and modifies its practices and internal controls to enhance security and ensure the privacy of sensitive information. Complimentary credit monitoring and identity theft protection services have been made available. Notification letters started to be sent to the affected individuals on April 24, 2026.”
Stephan is the sports journalist for the Maple Grove Report.
