Which describes the imminent threat exception?

Which describes the imminent threat exception?

• A. A general rule allowing disclosure whenever a client asks.
• B. A limited permission to share with specific professionals.
• C. A duty to maintain confidentiality in all circumstances.
• D. An ethical exception permitting disclosure when necessary to prevent a client from committing a crime or fraudulent act likely to result in death or substantial bodily harm.

Answer: (D)

The imminent threat exception is a narrow carve-out to the duty of confidentiality that allows disclosure when there is a real risk of imminent harm. The idea is that confidentiality isn’t absolute; when a client plans to commit a crime or fraudulent act that could result in death or substantial bodily harm, a lawyer may disclose information to prevent that harm. This is not a blanket permission to share, but a carefully limited exception aimed at preventing serious harm. So, the option that describes allowing disclosure when necessary to stop a client from committing a crime or fraud likely to cause death or substantial bodily harm fits this concept precisely. It captures the precautionary, protective purpose of the exception and its threshold—imminent risk of grave harm. The other descriptions don’t fit: one describes a universal rule to disclose on demand, which conflicts with the default duty of confidentiality; another depicts a generic, limited sharing with certain professionals that isn’t tied to preventing imminent harm; and a blanket duty to maintain confidentiality in all circumstances ignores the legitimate, narrowly scoped exceptions that ethics rules permit.

The imminent threat exception is a narrow carve-out to the duty of confidentiality that allows disclosure when there is a real risk of imminent harm. The idea is that confidentiality isn’t absolute; when a client plans to commit a crime or fraudulent act that could result in death or substantial bodily harm, a lawyer may disclose information to prevent that harm. This is not a blanket permission to share, but a carefully limited exception aimed at preventing serious harm.

So, the option that describes allowing disclosure when necessary to stop a client from committing a crime or fraud likely to cause death or substantial bodily harm fits this concept precisely. It captures the precautionary, protective purpose of the exception and its threshold—imminent risk of grave harm.

The other descriptions don’t fit: one describes a universal rule to disclose on demand, which conflicts with the default duty of confidentiality; another depicts a generic, limited sharing with certain professionals that isn’t tied to preventing imminent harm; and a blanket duty to maintain confidentiality in all circumstances ignores the legitimate, narrowly scoped exceptions that ethics rules permit.