Ethics in Brief: Remote Work, Public Spaces, and the Perils of Being Overheard: Ethical Duties in a Modern Practice Environment
By: Valerie Siverman Massey
Many attorneys no longer limit their workspace to a formal business office. With technological advancements, remote practice has become a defining feature of the modern legal profession. Attorneys now routinely work from home offices, coworking spaces, airports, cafés, the beach, parks and sporting events. While this flexibility has undeniable benefits, it also introduces heightened ethical risks—particularly when client communications occur in environments not designed for privacy.
Consider the following scenario:
Attorney takes a client’s call in a crowded café. The attorney and client discuss sensitive information and strategy about a pending business dispute. Unbeknownst to the attorney, a third party seated nearby overhears the conversation. Days later, that same individual—recognizing the parties involved— repeats the information they overheard and spreads rumors that influence the dispute. The client eventually learns that the breach originated from the attorney’s public conversation.
This increasingly common situation in a post‑pandemic world implicates several core duties under the California Rules of Professional Conduct (CRPC) and the State Bar Act. Remote work does not dilute these obligations; in many respects, it demands greater vigilance.
Under California law, an attorney’s duty of confidentiality remains nearly absolute and is not waived or diminished simply by working in a public space. Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code § 6068, Cain v. Superior Court (2025) 110 Cal. App. 5th 639, 650-651. An attorney has a strict statutory and ethical obligation to protect client confidences and secrets at all times. Cal Bus & Prof Code § 6068, Cal. Rules Prof. Conduct, rule 1.6. The confidentiality strand of the attorney-client relationship is governed by Business and Profession Code § 6068 (e)(1), which is recognized as the most strongly worded of all statutory duties binding on a California attorney. Cain at 669. This statute mandates that it is the duty of an attorney “[t]o maintain inviolate the confidence, and at every peril to himself or herself to preserve the secrets, of his or her client.” Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code § 6068(e)(1).
The duty of confidentiality is broader than the attorney-client privilege itself. Chubb & Son v. Superior Court (2014) 228 Cal. App. 4th 1094, 1104. While the attorney-client privilege protects communications transmitted between a client and a lawyer (Cal. Evid. Code § 954), the attorney’s ethical duty of confidentiality requires preserving all client “secrets,” which includes information that may not be privileged but must nonetheless be kept confidential to avoid causing the client embarrassment or harm. Chubb & Son at 1104.
Rule 1.6(a) of the CRPC restates this statutory obligation as an ethical precept carrying disciplinary consequences, prohibiting an attorney from revealing any information protected by Business and Profession Code § 6068 (e)(1) unless the client provides informed consent or a narrow exception applies. Cain at 669, and Cal. Rules Prof. Conduct, rule 1.6.
A more in-depth analysis of the Rules and obligations involved in breaches of confidentiality can be found in the California State Bar Committee on Professional Responsibility and Conduct (COPRAC) Formal Opinion 2020-203 regarding data breaches of electronically stored confidential client information. While the hypothetical situations vary, the underlying substantive issues of violations of client confidentiality remain the same. Cal. State Bar Comm. Prof’l Responsibility & Conduct, Formal Op. 2020‑203 (2020). The Opinion’s analysis of an attorney’s obligations regarding confidentiality is equally applicable to confidential communication breaches in a public setting.
Remote practice offers flexibility, but it does not relax ethical obligations. Public spaces are inherently unpredictable, and attorneys must treat them as high‑risk environments for client communications. The authorities discussed above make clear that confidentiality is not merely a rule; it is a defining feature of professional identity. Preserving it requires intentional, proactive conduct, regardless of where an attorney happens to be working.
