Restrictions on the Disclosure of Public Information Sample Clauses

Restrictions on the Disclosure of Public Information. The question presented to this Committee, however, is whether defense counsel may seek to condition a settlement upon opposing counsel’s agreement to forego disclosure of publicly available information about the case. Such a settlement agreement is more expansive than the narrower restrictions that traditionally have been permissible under Rule 5.6(b). Unlike a more narrowly drawn settlement agreement that precludes an attorney from disclosing confidential information to avoid potential adverse effects resulting from disclosure, a provision that restricts an attorney’s right to disclose public information concerning a case might well violate Rule 5.6(b). As discussed, Rule 5.6(b) protects against overly restrictive settlement agreements that are motivated by a desire to restrict or restrain opposing counsel’s ability to represent other clients. A settlement agreement sought by defense counsel that requires plaintiffs counsel to refrain from disclosing public information might well result in limiting an attorney’s ability to disclose his or her expertise, thus limiting the public’s ability to identify and obtain the most qualified counsel. Conversely, some non-disclosure agreements concerning public information likely would not result in an impermissible restriction on an attorney’s right to practice due to the nature of the information to be protected. One example would be a settlement agreement that bars plaintiff’s counsel from disclosing that a company has been sued “x” times, which information is part of public court filings. This restriction does not violate Rule 5.6(b) because the restricted information – the number of times the company has been sued – does not impair the attorney’s ability to effectively represent future clients or the ability of potential clients to identify experienced counsel. On the other hand, an agreement that precludes plaintiff’s counsel from disclosing, for example, a published epidemiological study that resulted in a defendant drug company changing its published warnings concerning a drug, would violate Rule 5.6(b) because it prohibits plaintiff’s counsel from discussing the study during the representation of future clients with claims against the same drug company. Similarly, an agreement that restricts an attorney’s ability to disclose the fact that the attorney had previously sued the drug company also would violate the Rule because it would impermissibly limit the public’s ability to identify the most experienced couns...