Jan. 14, 2026 – When filing a motion to withdraw, lawyers may feel compelled to overshare information. But absent client consent or a specific exception, SCR 20:1.6 sharply limits what information may be disclosed, even when a court asks for more detail.

Question

I’ve been practicing law for a long time. In all those years, I’ve never had reason to seek to withdraw as counsel for a client over the objection of my client – usually the decision to part ways with a client is a mutual one.

I’m currently representing a client in a contentious divorce. My client ignores every piece of legal advice I give him and is now facing a contempt hearing. There is no doubt in my mind that he is in contempt of the order, and we’ve had disagreements over how I will defend him at the motion hearing, which is in six weeks. To boot, he’s stopped making payments on his outstanding balance, which is sizable.

I’ve reviewed SCR 20:1.16 and believe I have grounds to seek withdrawal under SCR 20:1.16(b)(4) and (5).^[1]

I’ve asked a few of my lawyer acquaintances about what kind of information, and how much information, I should put in the motion, but there seems to be no clear consensus. Can you shed some light on this question?

Answer

We get this question regularly on the State Bar ethics hotline. The ABA recently released Formal Opinion 519, Disclosure of Information Relating to the Representation in a Motion to Withdraw From a Representation, which addresses the issue.

The ABA Formal Opinion

The opinion relies on ethics opinions from other states,^[2] which take the same position as the ABA opinion. The opinion is also consistent with the advice we give callers.

The opinion concludes:

When moving to withdraw from a representation under Rule 1.16, a lawyer’s disclosure to the tribunal is limited by the broad duty of confidentiality in Rule 1.6(a).^[3] Unless an explicit exception applies or the client provides informed consent, the lawyer may not reveal “information relating to the representation” in support of a withdrawal motion. This restriction applies even when withdrawal is mandatory under Rule 1.16(a). However, to the extent a lawyer seeks to withdraw pursuant to Rule 1.16(a)(2) because “the lawyer’s physical or mental condition materially impairs the lawyer’s ability to represent the client,” the lawyer will not ordinarily need to reveal information protected by Rule 1.6 to provide a fulsome explanation for the basis for the motion.

When a client withholds consent, disclosure of information relating to the representation will not be “impliedly authorized in order to carry out the representation” under Rule 1.6(a). Even when disclosure is permitted under Rule 1.6(b) or another rule, disclosure must be strictly limited to the extent reasonably necessary and, whenever possible, made through measures that protect confidentiality such as in camera or under seal submissions.

What does this look like in practice? The opinion advises a lawyer to proceed as follows:

(1) initially submit a motion providing no confidential client information apart from a reference to “professional considerations” or “irreconcilable differences;”

(2) upon being informed by the court that further information is necessary, respond, when practicable, by seeking to persuade the court to rule on the motion without requiring the disclosure of confidential client information, asserting all non-frivolous claims for maintaining confidentiality consistent with [SCR 20:1.6(a)] and for protecting the attorney-client privilege;

(3) if that fails and the lawyer is nonetheless ordered to submit information by the court – thereby invoking [SCR 20:1.6(b)(5)’s] exception – do so only to the extent “reasonably necessary” to satisfy the needs of the court and preferably by whatever restricted means of submission are available, such as in camera review, under seal, or such other procedures designated to minimize disclosure as the court determines is appropriate; and

(4) if the court does not order the lawyer to disclose but states that the motion to withdraw will be denied unless the lawyer provides more information, the lawyer remains bound by the duty of confidentiality and should remind the judge that, absent an order from the court, the lawyer is obligated under [SCR 20:1.6] to maintain the confidentiality of the information. In doing so, the lawyer should also request that, if the court does order the lawyer to disclose, the court require the lawyer to disclose only so much information protected by [SCR 20:1.6] as is necessary and allow the lawyer to make those disclosures in camera or submitted under seal so as to minimize harm to client’s interests.

Exceptions to Nondisclosure

As always, there are some exceptions to the general rule of nondisclosure in a motion to withdraw.

The opinion addresses three specific situations:

First, a lawyer may support the motion with personal information not related to the representation. For example, when a lawyer seeks to withdraw because “the lawyer’s physical or mental condition materially impairs the lawyer’s ability to represent the client” (SCR 20:1.16(a)(2)), the lawyer can ordinarily provide an explanation for the request to withdraw without revealing information relating to the representation of the client. Motions to withdraw premised on the lawyer’s own material impairment can reveal whatever information the lawyer wishes so long as it pertains to the lawyer and not to the representation of the client.

Second, in some situations, a client may give the lawyer informed consent^[4] to the lawyer’s disclosure of the information relating to the representation needed to adequately explain the lawyer’s motion. For example, in situations wherein a lawyer is required to withdraw because the lawyer has been discharged (SCR 20:1.16(a)(3)), the client will ordinarily authorize the lawyer to disclose the basis of the motion. In other situations, it may be beneficial to a client to allow the lawyer to disclose a limited amount of information to avoid the court asking for a more detailed, and perhaps more damaging, disclosure.

Third, in some situations an exception to the duty of confidentiality will apply. SCR 20:1.6(c) is among the rules that set forth exceptions.^[5],[6] Three other rules expressly permit or require disclosure of information relating to the representation and may conceivably permit disclosures in support of a withdrawal motion:

• SCR 20:3.3(a) (“If a lawyer, the lawyer’s client, or a witness called by the lawyer, has offered material evidence and the lawyer comes to know of its falsity, the lawyer shall take reasonable remedial measures, including, if necessary, disclosure to the tribunal.”);

• SCR 20:1.13(c)(2) (a lawyer representing an organization “may reveal information relating to the representation” if the organization’s highest authority fails to address an act, or refusal to act, that is clearly a violation of law that the lawyer reasonably believes is reasonably certain to cause substantial injury to the organization “whether or not Rule 1.6 permits such disclosure, but only if and to the extent” the lawyer reasonably believes the disclosure is necessary to prevent substantial injury to the organization); and

• SCR 20:1.14(c) (“Information relating to the representation of a client with diminished capacity is protected by SCR 20:1.6. When taking protective action pursuant to par. (b), the lawyer is impliedly authorized under SCR 20:1.6(a) to reveal information about the client, but only to the extent reasonably necessary to protect the client's interests.”

The opinion reminds lawyers that, pursuant to SCR 20:1.6(c), a lawyer must comply with applicable laws or court rules requiring notice or permission of the tribunal when terminating a representation.

Furthermore, when ordered to by the tribunal, the lawyer must continue the representation notwithstanding good cause for terminating the representation. This rule admittedly puts some lawyers in a difficult position, especially those who have sought to withdraw pursuant to SCR 20:1.16(a)(1) (“the representation will result in a violation of the Rules of Professional Conduct.”), as is sometimes the case when a lawyer seeks to withdraw because of a conflict of interest. The opinion notes that, [c]ontinuing the representation in accordance with the court’s ruling should not subject a lawyer to discipline or sanction for having a conflict of interest.”

The opinion affirms that “[t]he duty of confidentiality is the foundation upon which the client-lawyer relationship exists. Absent an explicit exception to the broad confidentiality obligation, the rules do not permit a lawyer to reveal [SCR 20:1.6] material in a motion to withdraw, despite the occasional negative consequences.”

Conclusion

In the situation presented in the question, the lawyer should initially submit a very generic request that does not reveal any information protected under SCR 20:1.6. As is often the case in these situations, revealing information relating to the representation in order to justify the motion would likely reveal information that is detrimental to the client.

If ordered to reveal confidential information, the lawyer should reveal information only to the extent reasonably necessary to justify the motion and should not be taken as an invitation to “spill the dirt” on your client.

Endnotes

[1] SCR 20:1.16(b) enumerates permissive ground for withdrawal. The two grounds cited here are “(4) the client insists upon taking action that the lawyer considers repugnant or with which the lawyer has a fundamental disagreement; (5) the client fails substantially to fulfill an obligation to the lawyer regarding the lawyer's services and has been given reasonable warning that the lawyer will withdraw unless the obligation is fulfilled.”

[2] See NYSBA Ethics Op. 1057 (June 5, 2015) and CA Formal Op. 2015-192.

[3] ABA Model Rule 1.6 is identical to SCR 20: 1.6(a), and prohibits a lawyer from revealing “information relating to the representation of a client” unless the client gives informed consent or one of the exceptions to the rule applies.

[4] SCR 20:1.0(f) defines informed consent as “the agreement by a person to a proposed course of conduct after the lawyer has communicated adequate information and explanation about the material risks of and reasonably available alternatives to the proposed course of conduct.”

[5] SCR 20:1.6(c) differs from its counterpart, Model Rule 1.6(b). See Wisconsin Committee Comments to SCR 20:1.6 for further explanation.

[6] SCR 20:1.6(c) allows an lawyer to reveal information relating to the representation of client “to the extent the lawyer reasonably believes necessary” (1) to prevent reasonably likely death or substantial bodily harm; (2) to prevent, mitigate or rectify substantial injury to the financial interests or property of another that is reasonably certain to result or has resulted from the client's commission of a crime or fraud in furtherance of which the client has used the lawyer's services; (3) to secure legal advice about the lawyer's conduct under these rules; (4) to establish a claim or defense on behalf of the lawyer in a controversy between the lawyer and the client, to establish a defense to a criminal charge or civil claim against the lawyer based upon conduct in which the client was involved, or to respond to allegations in any proceeding concerning the lawyer's representation of the client; (5) to comply with other law or a court order; or (6) to detect and resolve conflicts of interest, but only if the revealed information would not compromise the attorney-client privilege or otherwise prejudice the client.