Which of the following is an exception to the duty of confidentiality?

The recognition of exceptions to the duty of confidentiality is a critical aspect of legal ethics. Specifically, situations involving death or substantial bodily harm are treated with heightened urgency due to the significant public policy concerns at play.

In California, a lawyer is permitted to reveal confidential information when the lawyer reasonably believes it is necessary to prevent a client from committing a criminal act that the lawyer believes is likely to result in death or substantial bodily harm. This exception acknowledges the responsibility of legal professionals to protect not only their clients’ interests but also to prevent harm to others. The potential for serious consequences, such as loss of life or severe injury, overrides the absolute nature of attorney-client confidentiality in this specific context.

The other options do not create similar justifications for breaching confidentiality. Discussions with opposing counsel about disputes do not usually involve immediate threats to life or health and typically require maintaining confidentiality to uphold the integrity of the attorney-client relationship. Sharing information about past cases with colleagues does not fit the criteria for an exception because it does not pertain to the necessity of preventing harm or unlawful acts, and client regret over earlier decisions is a personal matter that does not warrant breaching confidentiality. Thus, understanding the nature of these exceptions highlights the balance that attorneys must maintain between their ethical duties