amendments to the Hawaii Rules of Professional Conduct

lawyer's use of a hypothetical to discuss issues relating to the
representation is permissible so long as there is no reasonable
likelihood that the listener will be able to ascertain the identity
of the client or the situation involved.
Authorized Disclosure
[5] Except to the extent that the client's instructions or
special circumstances limit that authority, a lawyer is impliedly
authorized to make disclosures about a client when appropriate
in carrying out the representation. In some situations, for
example, a lawyer may be impliedly authorized to admit a fact
that cannot properly be disputed or to make a disclosure that
facilitates a satisfactory conclusion to a matter. Lawyers in a
firm may, in the course of the firm's practice, disclose to each
other information relating to a client of the firm, unless the
client has instructed that particular information be confined to
specified lawyers.
Disclosure Adverse to Client
[6] The confidentiality rule is subject to limited
exceptions. In becoming privy to information about a client, a
lawyer may realize that the client has used or intends to use the
lawyer’s services in the furtherance of criminal or fraudulent
conduct. The lawyer may not counsel or assist a client in
conduct that is criminal or fraudulent. See Rule 1.2(d) of these
Rules. Similarly, a lawyer has a duty under Rule 3.3(a)(4) of
these Rules not to use false evidence, which is but one example
of the more general duty prescribed in Rule 1.2(d) to avoid
assisting a client in criminal or fraudulent conduct.
[7] The lawyer may have been innocently involved in
past conduct by the client that was criminal or fraudulent. In
such a situation, the lawyer has not violated Rule 1.2(d) of these
Rules because to “counsel or assist” criminal or fraudulent
conduct requires knowing that the conduct is of that character.
Nevertheless, to extend the protection of Rule 1.6 to information
possessed by the lawyer with respect to such conduct would
have the effect of assisting the client in such conduct in violation
of the policy expressed in Rule 1.2(d).
[8] Where the lawyer’s information falls short of clearly
establishing a criminal or fraudulent act by the client, but
supports a reasonable belief by the lawyer that a criminal or
fraudulent act has occurred, the discretionary disclosure
provisions of Rule 1.6(b)(2) of these Rules may be applicable.
Where the lawyer’s information clearly establishes the criminal
or fraudulent act, the mandatory disclosure requirement of Rule
1.6(c) may be applicable. The requirement that the lawyer’s
services must have been used by the client in the furtherance of
the criminal or fraudulent act means that the services must have
- 23 ­