Yeah, but there's this loophole:

(b) A lawyer may reveal, to the extent the lawyer reasonably believes necessary, information relating to representation of a client:

Especially when the client isn't being 100 percent truthful about what he says in public.

But there's the little loophole in the rules:

(b) A lawyer may reveal, to the extent the lawyer reasonably believes necessary, information relating to representation of a client:

That's a lot of wiggle room.

Ron, there's a colon at the end of that sentence, and the four subparagraphs of that paragraph describe the purposes for which disclosure is permitted. Here's the complete sentence:

(b) A lawyer may reveal, to the extent the lawyer reasonably believes necessary, information relating to representation of a client:

(1) to disclose the intention of the client to commit a crime and the information necessary to prevent the crime;

(2) to rectify the consequences of what the lawyer knows to be a client's criminal or fraudulent act in the commission of which the lawyer's services had been used, provided that the lawyer has first made reasonable efforts to contact the client but has been unable to do so, or that the lawyer has contacted and called upon the client to rectify such criminal or fraudulent act but the client has refused or is unable to do so.

(3) 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;

(4) or as otherwise permitted under these Rules.

Which of those four rules authorizes the disclosures that Busby made to the Whirled of private conversations that Busby alleges occurred?

There's this:

(3) to establish a claim or defense on behalf of the lawyer in a controversy between the lawyer and the client,

Since there's an obvious controversy between what Medlock says and what Busby says, that gives him a lot of leeway.

I should add that the rules are written vaguely enough that it takes a blatant, serious violation for a lawyer to be caught and then disciplined.

I'm not defending this, but it's just the way it is.

My understanding of the practical part of this rule is that if the client thinks there has been a violation of some ethical standard, they are required to file a complaint with the bar. I also understand that the bar takes these complaints quite seriously, and investigates them vigorously. A complaint unfortunately, will probably never happen, assuming there are city councilors quite happy with the direction the tail of this dog has wagged.

For the teacher of the class on wiggleroom and loopholes, someone should make a list and post them on the internet the history of complaints against FORMER Senator Stipe. He may have served the longest, however, Stipe probably has the most wiggleroom and loopholes ever allowed by a State Senator and practicing attorney (and some might also think of him as an actor with his "too frail/ ill" stunt yet well enough to go on his honeymoon?)

The main problem here, as I see it, is that we allow bumbling and babbleing lawyers too much power.