You have presented a hypothetical situation in which Daughter
requested that Counsel represent Client/Mother in Client's claim to
federal cash and medical assistance pending in a federal
administrative department.  Counsel obtained copies of pre-existing
documentary evidence and hired private consultants, a medical
doctor and a psychologist, to examine and evaluate Client and to
report to Counsel.  You indicate that the consultant's reports were
proffered to the appropriate federal administrative department
personnel.  A federal administrative employee subsequently demands
copies of summary letters sent by Counsel to the private
consultants.  You further advise that these letters contain
confidences and secrets of the client.

You advise that Client is mildly mentally retarded and Counsel
questions whether Client has the capacity to waive the attorney-
client privilege.   

You have asked the committee to opine whether, under the facts of
the inquiry, Counsel must disclose the factual summary letters sent
to the private consultants preliminary to their evaluations.

The appropriate and controlling Disciplinary Rule related to your
inquiry is DR 4-101, which provides for the preservation of client
confidences and secrets.
The committee is of the opinion that the factual summaries sent by
Counsel to the private consultants contain confidential information
learned within the attorney-client relationship.  Therefore, the
committee opines that it would be improper for Counsel to
voluntarily disclose the information requested by the federal
administrative employee.  However, as permitted by DR 4-l0l(C)(2),
Counsel may provide the documents in question in response to a
court order.  The Committee believes that it is incumbent upon
Counsel to move to quash any subpoena issued for the information in
an effort to continue to protect the Client's confidentiality. 
Should the motion be denied, with the court ordering Counsel to
disclose the information, Counsel would then be permitted to do so
in response to the Order.  See LEOs #300, #334, #645, #967.   

[DR4-101, LEOs 330, 334, 645, 967]

Committee Opinion
February 7, 1995