Abstract
I. Introduction Early in 2000, having become aware of actions in the California Insurance Department that became the Quackenbush scandal, an experienced department attorney, Cindy Ossias, delivered confidential documents to the Assembly and State Senate insurance committees,n1 in pure violation of her duty of confidentiality. n2 Ossias's action raised fundamental questions concerning the professional responsibilities of government lawyers, and the conflicting pressures affecting them. If there were an eleventh commandment for lawyers (assuming they pay any attention to the first ten) it would be "thou shalt not disclose confidential client information."n3 As graven in California Business and Professions Code section 6068(e) and (for most lawyers outside California) other state versions of Rule 1.6 of the American Bar Association Model Rules of Professional Conduct, the duty of confidentiality is a basic obligation every attorney is sworn to uphold when he or she is licensed by the state to practice law.n4 The rationale is simple: Clients must be free to confide in their attorney all information relating to their cases without fear that it will be communicated to others in an unauthorized manner.n5 Correspondingly, the attorney must be able to learn the facts needed to properly represent the client. n6 A competing public policy, however, strongly favors exposure of malefaction and dereliction of duty by public officials.n7 The rationale for this policy, too, is simple: The public has the right to know how it is being governed, and violations of the public trust should ...