“Whether the disclosures were the acts of a disgruntled, recently-terminated employee or of a dutiful public servant, McCarty knowingly disclosed client information in violation of his sworn duty of confidentiality. No matter how noteworthy his disclosure may have been, it does not justify violating his sacred duty to his client,” the state high court said.
“Whether the disclosures were the acts of a disgruntled, recently-terminated employee or of a dutiful public servant, McCarty knowingly disclosed client information in violation of his sworn duty of confidentiality. No matter how noteworthy his disclosure may have been, it does not justify violating his sacred duty to his client,” the state high court said.
