Heller is representing a client that got his other client sent to jail for murder.
Under Rule 1.7 (a) “a lawyer must not represent a client if doing so creates a concurrent conflict of interest”. That could include the significant risk posed to the attorney representing one client and finding himself materially limited by the lawyer’s own interest or to those a former client. Heller, from the facts outline in the film, clearly cannot serve as Roulet’s lawyer, especially as details point out about his involvement in the murder for which another client was charged and convicted. His client Roulet, of course, is crafty to choose Mickey as his attorney. That’s because, even if his lawyer gets forced off his case, everything Roulet had already told Mickey from the initial meeting onward was subject to the confidence of attorney-client privilege.
Rule 1.6 Confidentiality of Information: Client-Lawyer Relationship
The film is correct in stating that the privilege is held by the client, not the attorney, and that an attorney has …show more content…
Confidentiality is a key part of being an attorney, and attorneys take that obligation very seriously. Without Roulet’s permission Haller could not testify against Roulet in court, nor could he disclose what he knew to the police or anyone else. Rule 1.6 (a) states that “a lawyer shall not reveal information relating to the representation of a client unless the client give informed consent…”. There are narrow exceptions to the duty of confidentiality, but they do not apply here. According to ABA, rule 1.6(b)(1)(2) a lawyer may, but is not required to “reveal information relating to the representation of a client to the extent the lawyer reasonably believes… it will prevent reasonably certain death or substantial bodily harm, to prevent