Clients aren’t a lawyer’s secret

In recent days, the Los Angeles city attorney race has been dominated by one issue: Whether Carmen Trutanich, a San Pedro attorney and former prosecutor, will disclose the identity of his former clients. His opponent, City Councilman Jack Weiss, has repeatedly asked for this disclosure. Trutanich has refused.

I have endorsed neither candidate and, as a resident of Orange County, have given no thought to whom I would vote for in this race. But as someone who has taught legal ethics for more than 25 years and who is very familiar with the role of the city attorney under the City Charter, I would say Weiss is unquestionably correct on one issue: The voters should know who Trutanich has represented, and there are no legal grounds for Trutanich’s stonewalling.

There are many reasons that the voters should know who the candidates for city attorney have represented as lawyers in their private practices, first among them that their previous law practices can become an issue in public life. Three years ago, the California Supreme Court held that a case handled by the San Francisco city attorney before taking office created a conflict of interest that required disqualification of the entire office from handling a fraud case. The voters thus need to know a candidate for city attorney’s clients in order to be able to evaluate whether the past representations will cause the need for disqualifications and thus necessitate the hiring of outside counsel, which will involve substantial costs to the taxpayers.

More generally, there is the need for voters to know if a candidate for city attorney took positions that will compromise his or her ability to represent the city effectively. For example, Weiss has asserted that Trutanich has repeatedly represented the National Rifle Assn. and major polluters and has therefore taken positions on gun control and environmental protection that could hinder his ability to effectively represent the city’s positions on these issues.

There is no way to evaluate whether a candidate has a potential conflict without disclosure of prior clients. If Trutanich has done work for the NRA, as Weiss asserts, then that surely may be relevant to some voters in evaluating his suitability for office in a city with strict gun-control ordinances.

Trutanich said that he has an ethical obligation to keep the identity of his clients secret. When asked, he cited several provisions of the American Bar Assn.’s Model Rules of Professional Conduct. But the provisions he mentioned are not relevant and in some instances don’t even exist.

In fact, the law of professional responsibility is clear that the identity of a client is generally not deemed confidential. The law requires that a lawyer keep secret the content of communications with a client, but the identity of a client is not regarded as confidential except in the rare case in which disclosing it would inevitably reveal the content of a secret communication. There is nothing in the California Rules of Professional Responsibility, the California Business and Professional Code or the ABA’s Model Rules that require that a lawyer keep secret the identity of past or current clients.

Nor does concern for privacy of former clients provide a basis for Trutanich’s stonewalling. At the very least, there is no privacy involved if Trutanich made a court appearance or a public statement or filed a brief for a client. All of this is a matter of public record.

The city attorney is a vitally important office under the Los Angeles City Charter. It is one of only three citywide elected offices. The city attorney’s staff prosecutes misdemeanors, sues on behalf of the city, defends it when it is sued and is the sole source of legal advice to the mayor, controller, City Council and departments.

The voters of Los Angeles need to be able to fully evaluate the candidates for this office. Now and in the future, candidates should be required to disclose their former clients. Any candidate who refuses should be deemed unsuitable for this high office.