"
MARYLAND STATE BAR ASSOCIATION, INC.
COMMITTEE ON ETHICS
ETHICS DOCKET NO. 1989-41
Confidentiality of Information: Tribunal Involving Alleged Bogus Candor Toward Will.
Your inquiry states that you probated the estate of Client X's deceased wife in 1982. Client X's deceased wife was survived by Client X, two daughters from a prior marriage, and three grandchildren, being the children of a deceased child of Mrs. X from a prior marriage.
The estate consisted of a single asset which was a piece of real estate (valued at $225,000.00) titled solely in the decedent's name. You were presented with a Will allegedly executed by the decedent, which was purportedly found by her daughters from the prior marriage. A caveat proceeding was instituted by Mr. Y, who was one of the decedent's grandchildren. The caveat proceeding was settled. Releases were executed by Client X, the caveator, and the two daughters of the decedent. The estate was subsequently closed, Mr. X receiving a one-third fee simple interest in the property, and the living daughters of the decedent each receiving a one-third interest in the property subject to a life estate in Mr. X.
In 1987, one of the daughters, Mrs. A, died interstate. Counsel was contacted by Mr. X, advising that Mrs. A's surviving spouse and her surviving children all wanted to renounce their right to serve as Personal Representative of Mrs. A's estate in favor of Mr. X. In addition, the surviving children of Mrs. A wanted to renounce their share in their mother's estate in favor of Mr. X. The only asset in the estate was her one-third interest in the property which she had inherited from her deceased mother, and in which Mr. X had a life estate. Mrs. A's husband and children signed renunciations and Mr. X was appointed Personal Representative for the estate in 1988. You represented Mr. X in this capacity.
Mr. A subsequently filed a motion to revoke his renunciation of his right to serve as Personal Representative and requested that the Court revoke Mr. X's Letters of Administration. You contacted Mr. A's attorney and was advised, in part, that the Will probated in Mrs. X's estate in 1983 was a forgery, the product of a conspiracy between Mr. X, Mr. A and Mr. A's son.
Your inquiry asks what your ethical obligations are in light of the information that you have now received from Mr. A's attorney.
Rule 1.6 of the Maryland Rules of Professional Conduct provides in part that: 'A lawyer may reveal such information to the extent the lawyer reasonably believes necessary: (2) to rectify the consequences of a client's criminal or fraudulent act in the furtherance of which the lawyer's services were used . . .' The comment to the Rule provides that a lawyer, has a legitimate interest in being able to rectify the consequences of such conduct, and has the professional right, although not a professional duty, to rectify the situation. Exercising that right may require revealing information relating to the representation. Paragraph (b) (2) gives the lawyer professional discretion to reveal such information to the extent necessary to accomplish rectification.'
Based on the Rule recited herein, it is the opinion of the Committee that it is within your discretion to take the necessary steps to rectify the fraudulent conduct of Mr. X.
Reference: Rule 1.6, Maryland Rules of Professional Conduct
"