When a lawyer's financial stake in the outcome doesn't justify exposing client information in conflicts of interest.

Ethics isn’t just a rulebook. It’s a trust contract between a lawyer and a client. The moment that trust matters most is when a conflict of interest shows up—that moment when personal interests threaten to tilt the scales. So, let’s unpack a common MPRE-style scenario in plain language, with real-world feel.

Confidentiality, conflicts, and how they kind of collide

Think of confidentiality as the vault where a client’s secrets stay safe. The door is tight, and the rules are strict. The lawyer can disclose information only in a few narrow, carefully defined situations. On the flip side, a conflict of interest is like a red flag that says: “Hey, this relationship might not be objective.” A conflict doesn’t automatically justify breaking confidentiality, but it can complicate the lawyer’s duties.

Here’s the thing with the MPRE-style question you’ll see: it asks which scenario does NOT justify breaking client confidences just because a conflict exists. The punchline is subtle but important — not every conflict gives a take-out pass to disclose information.

Which scenario are we talking about?

The question lays out four possibilities:

A. Client intends to commit substantial financial harm

B. Client expresses intention to kill someone

C. Lawyer has a financial interest in the outcome

D. Client seeks legal advice on future actions

The correct answer is C: Lawyer has a financial interest in the outcome. Why? Because a personal financial stake is a classic conflict of interest. It isn’t a green light to pry into or reveal the client’s secrets. The ethical rules aim to shield the client from a lawyer who has their own money on the line.

Let me explain how the others fit in, because that’s where the real learning happens.

A. Client intends to commit substantial financial harm

This is the kind of scenario that often triggers a different kind of exception to confidentiality. If the client’s plan is to commit fraud or cause substantial financial harm, a lawyer may disclose information to prevent that harm if certain conditions are met. The key ideas here are “reasonably certain” harm and “the lawyer’s services.” The ethics rules allow, in limited circumstances, disclosures aimed at preventing crime or fraud—especially when the client has used the lawyer’s services in the wrongdoing. It’s not a free pass to disclose at will, but it does create a scenario where disclosure is permissible to avert real harm.

B. Client expresses intention to kill someone

This is a classic “kill switch” moment in ethics discussions. When a client threatens serious harm to another person, the lawyer may disclose information to prevent that harm. The concern isn’t about the lawyer’s personal interest; it’s about saving lives. The threshold here is high, but the exception is real. It’s about protecting others from imminent danger, and it’s one of the clearer reasons confidentiality can be breached under the right circumstances.

D. Client seeks legal advice on future actions

If a client asks for guidance on future steps, the lawyer’s job is to give honest, lawful counsel while keeping confidences. This scenario doesn’t present a conflict that automatically justifies disclosure to others. The lawyer can help the client think through options without revealing secrets to third parties. Of course, if the client’s future actions would involve illegal or dangerous conduct, that’s where the careful, rules-based assessment comes back into play, but the mere act of seeking advice on future steps isn’t, by itself, a grounds for breaking confidentiality.

What this all means for MPRE understanding (in more practical terms)

• Confidentiality is foundational; it’s the default. Break glass only when the rule says you may, not because a conflict exists.

• Conflicts of interest matter, but they don’t automatically override confidentiality. A financial stake in the outcome creates a different set of concerns—primarily about the lawyer’s ability to represent the client impartially, not about the client’s secrets per se.

• The exceptions to confidentiality (to prevent death or substantial harm, to prevent certain financial harm, to obtain legal advice, etc.) operate on their own terms. They aren’t permission slips for the lawyer to disclose simply because there’s a conflict.

A quick mental model you can carry with you

• If the issue is about preventing harm to a person: think “may disclose” if the risk is real and the conditions line up.

• If the issue is a personal stake the lawyer has: think “conflict means be extra careful; do not disclose to exploit that stake.” The conflict is about integrity and loyalty, not about letting the lawyer pick which secrets to share.

• If the client is simply asking for future guidance: provide thoughtful, lawful advice and keep confidences, unless a specific exception applies or the client’s instructions push toward illegal behavior.

A few real-world takeaways (without the exam-room glare)

• Early awareness matters: identify potential conflicts when a client first comes in. If a lawyer notices a financial stake in the outcome, it’s not just a “nice to know” detail—it changes how the relationship is managed.

• Don’t borrow or lend trust to the point of compromising confidences. The moment a conflict appears, it’s wise to reassess representation, and if needed, seek ethics counsel or consider withdrawal to preserve integrity.

• When harm is at stake, the rule book provides narrow avenues to disclose. It’s not a free-for-all; it’s a careful, rule-bound option to prevent serious harm to others.

• If the client’s request is about future actions, that’s a planning conversation, not a disclosure session. The lawyer should guide, normalize risk, and discuss options while keeping confidences intact.

A tiny detour that sometimes helps: the “screen” concept

In larger firms, there’s something called an ethical screen or “screening.” It’s a structure meant to prevent cross-contamination when there’s a potential conflict. The idea is that one part of the team works on a matter while others avoid it, with walls to prevent information flow. It’s not a weapon to justify disclosure; it’s a way to keep trust intact while navigating complex organizational realities. If you’re ever in a setting where conflicts could arise, this is one of those practical tools to understand—not because it excuses anything, but because it shows how the profession tries to balance competing duties.

A final reflection

Ethics is about trust, plain and simple. The MPRE questions aren’t about catching you out for the sake of trickiness; they’re about ensuring future lawyers understand where their loyalty belongs, where their discretion ends, and where the law permits them to act for the safety and fairness of all involved. The scenario we started with—C, the financial stake—serves as a clear reminder: a personal interest doesn’t justify prying into a client’s confidences. It’s the kind of boundary that protects the client relationship, and by extension, the entire justice system.

If you’re looking to keep these ideas top of mind, here are a few compact pointers you can revisit anytime:

• Treat confidentiality as the default; only loosen it when the rules explicitly allow.

• Treat conflicts as alarms, not permission slips. A conflict calls for careful handling, not a shortcut to disclosure.

• When harm could come to someone, look for the specific exceptions that legally justify disclosure, and use them only when their conditions are clearly met.

• When the path isn’t obvious, ask: does revealing confidences actually prevent harm or serve justice? If the answer isn’t clear, the safest move is to preserve confidences and seek counsel.

Trust, after all, is earned in the details as much as in the grand statements. And in the world of professional responsibility, those details are the difference between a respected attorney and a compromised one.

If you want to keep exploring these ideas, you can look at resources from bar associations and ethics opinions that illuminate how these rules are applied across real cases. They’re not bedtime reading, but they’re the kind of material that makes the rules feel alive—relevant, practical, and surprisingly human. And isn’t that what the law is supposed to be about—protecting people, one careful decision at a time?