Ethical Dilemmas in Legal Representation**

Relevance: GS Paper IV – Ethics; GS Paper II – Polity (Right to Fair Trial)
Source: Supreme Court judgment (Oct 2024), The Hindu analysis

Introduction

Client confidentiality is central to the lawyer–client relationship — it enables trust, honest disclosure, and effective defence. A recent Supreme Court ruling reaffirmed that lawyers cannot be compelled to reveal client communications, except when the communication itself is part of a crime.
This raises vital ethical questions: Is confidentiality absolute? When does duty to the client give way to duty to law and society?

What Is Client Confidentiality?

Confidentiality means a lawyer must not disclose information shared by a client during professional engagement. Its ethical purpose is to:

• encourage full and truthful disclosure,
  
• ensure a fair defence,
  
• protect privacy and dignity, and
  
• uphold constitutional rights (Articles 20(3), 21, 14).
  

Without confidentiality, representation becomes hollow and justice collapses into fear and coercion.

Legal Framework

The Core Ethical Dilemma

A lawyer is bound by two competing obligations:

1. Duty to the Client

Loyalty, confidentiality, trust, non-betrayal — the heart of professional ethics.

2. Duty to Justice and Society

Avoid assisting in crime, ensure truth, uphold rule of law.

Ethical tension: Can silence amount to complicity? Can disclosure amount to betrayal?

Other issues involved

• Conflict of duties: Loyalty vs justice.
• State overreach: Coercive summons can weaponise investigation.
• Client misuse: Privilege cannot shield planned or ongoing crimes.
• Public trust: Breach damages faith in the justice system.
• Vulnerable clients: Confidentiality is often their only protection.

When Can Confidentiality Be Broken?

A lawyer may reveal information only when:

1. Client consents,
   
2. The communication is made for an illegal purpose, or
   
3. It reveals a crime committed after engagement.
   

These limits ensure privilege is strong but not a tool to hide ongoing illegality.

Supreme Court’s Ethical Reasoning

The Court held:

• Summoning a lawyer to disclose client statements creates an involuntary witness, collapsing the barrier between defence and prosecution.
  
• This violates fair trial, equitable representation, self-incrimination protection, and constitutional morality.
  
• Lawyers are constitutional actors, not State agents; using them to obtain evidence is a “blatant breach of the rule against non-disclosure”.
  

The verdict protects ordinary citizens, especially vulnerable groups who depend on confidential legal advice — victims of violence, whistle-blowers, and those facing custodial pressure.

Key Ethical Issues

• Conflict of duties: Loyalty vs justice.
  
• State overreach: Coercive summons can weaponise investigation.
  
• Client misuse: Privilege cannot shield planned or ongoing crimes.
  
• Public trust: Breach damages faith in the justice system.
  
• Vulnerable clients: Confidentiality is often their only protection.
  

Balanced Ethical Position

Client confidentiality is essential for:

• truthful communication,
  
• effective defence,
  
• citizen autonomy,
  
• constitutional guarantees.
  

Yet it is not absolute. The guiding principle is: Silence must not protect unlawful intent, but disclosure must not violate justice or rights.

UPSC Mains Question

“Does a lawyer’s duty of confidentiality outweigh their moral responsibility to prevent harm? Discuss using constitutional morality and professional ethics principles.”