the purposes specified in paragraphs ( c )( 1 ) through ( c )( 5 ). In exercising the discretion conferred by this Rule , the lawyer may consider such factors as the nature of the lawyer ’ s relationship with the client and with those who might be injured by the client , the lawyer ’ s own involvement in the transaction and factors that may extenuate the conduct in question .
As indicated in the comment , “[ a ] lawyer ’ s decision not to disclose as permitted by paragraph ( c ) does not violate this Rule .” N . D . R . Prof . Conduct 1.6 cmt . 15 .
It should be noted that if Attorney undertakes the permissive disclosure under Rule 1.6 ( c ), for the reasons outlined above , Attorney has an obligation to disclose only to the extent necessary to prevent Former Client from committing a crime or fraud and / or to prevent or mitigate a substantial injury to another ’ s financial interest . N . D . R .
Prof . Conduct 1.6 cmt . 15 . See also In re Dyer , 2012 ND 118 , ¶ 19 (“ A lawyer should attempt to protect the confidential information and limit the disclosure if possible .”) ( citing cases ).
CONCLUSION This opinion was drafted by Lori H . Conroy and was unanimously approved by the Ethics Committee on the 6th day of December , 2016 .
This opinion is provided under Rule 1.2 ( B ), North Dakota Rules for
Lawyer Discipline , which states : A lawyer who acts with good faith and reasonable reliance on a written opinion or advisory letter of the ethics committee of the association is not subject to sanction for violation of the North Dakota Rules of Professional Conduct as to the conduct that is the subject of the opinion or advisory letter .
WINTER 2017 37