491 P.3d 42
Or.2021Background
- Conry (solo practitioner, immigration/criminal law) represented a client from 2010–2015; the client had convictions for second‑degree burglary and second‑degree theft and faced deportation.
- The client posted three negative online reviews (Yelp, Google, Avvo) under the name/forms “Yarik P” or “yarik,” criticizing Conry’s work and claiming he was not deportable.
- In June 2016 Conry posted public responses to those reviews; the responses identified the client’s convictions and, in the Avvo response, the client’s full name; Conry later removed the posts.
- The Oregon State Bar charged Conry with violating RPC 1.6(a) (disclosure of information relating to representation); a Disciplinary Board trial panel found a violation and imposed a 30‑day suspension.
- The Oregon Supreme Court reviewed de novo: it held that the convictions and identity were information relating to representation; disclosures of the convictions (on Yelp/Google) fell within the RPC 1.6(b)(4) self‑defense exception as reasonably necessary, but disclosing the client’s full name (Avvo) was not objectively necessary; Conry received a public reprimand.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Bar) | Defendant's Argument (Conry) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Conry revealed “information relating to the representation of a client” under RPC 1.6(a) | Disclosing the client’s convictions and name were learned in the representation and were embarrassing/detrimental → protected information | The facts were public record or the reviewer had already revealed enough (so Conry did not ‘reveal’ protected information) | Yes: convictions and identity are information relating to representation and Conry revealed them |
| Whether RPC 1.6(b)(4) self‑defense exception permits disclosure of the client’s convictions | Exception does not apply because disclosures exceeded what was necessary to defend | Exception applies: revealing the convictions was necessary to rebut false/misleading reviews about deportability | Held applicable to disclosures of the convictions on Yelp/Google — Conry reasonably believed revealing convictions was necessary |
| Whether RPC 1.6(b)(4) permits disclosure of the client’s name (Avvo) | Disclosure of name was unnecessary and magnified harm; exception does not cover naming the client | Naming was needed so the public could verify competing statements and assess credibility | Not allowed: objective reasonableness lacking for revealing client’s name; name disclosure violated RPC 1.6(a) without exception |
| Appropriate sanction and mental state | Aggravating facts support suspension (panel imposed 30 days) | Conry argued lesser culpability (negligence), removal of posts, and free‑speech concerns | Court found a knowing violation (not intentional), recognized mitigating factors, and imposed a public reprimand rather than suspension |
Key Cases Cited
- In re Lackey, 333 Or 215 (attorney intentionally revealed client confidences; suspension imposed) (distinguished)
- In re Huffman, 328 Or 567 (intentional disclosure of client secrets to obtain advantage; suspension imposed) (distinguished)
- In re Nisley, 365 Or 793 (framework for determining sanctions using ABA Standards) (sanction analysis)
- In re Maurer, 364 Or 190 (subjective misunderstanding of law can affect characterization of mental state) (mental‑state guidance)
- Crimson Trace Corp. v. Davis Wright Tremaine LLP, 355 Or 476 (client identity not ordinarily privileged) (authority on client identity)
- In re Schenck, 345 Or 350 (knowing mental state requires awareness of essential facts) (mental‑state precedent)