In United States v. Quest Diagnostics Inc., 734 F.3d 154 (2d Cir. 2013) (No. 11-1565), a qui tam whistleblower suit was brought by a partnership, one partner of which was the former general counsel (“GC”) for the defendant. In connection with the lawsuit, the former GC divulged confidential communications between the defendant and its counsel relating to the allegedly fraudulent conduct. The defendant moved to dismiss based on a breach of ethical duties by the former GC. The district court granted the motion, and the Second Circuit affirmed. The Court of Appeals first found that the former GC had breached N.Y. Rule 1.9(c) by disclosing confidential information. The former GC argued that the disclosure was subject to the exception in N.Y. Rule 1.6(b)(2), which authorizes a lawyer to reveal confidential information to the extent the lawyer reasonably believes necessary to prevent the client from committing a crime. The court found that the former GC could have reasonably believed the defendant had the intent to commit a crime, but that he could not have reasonably believed the disclosure was necessary to prevent a crime; the matter could have been brought to the government’s attention, and a qui tam lawsuit could have been filed, without revealing the confidential information. The court further found that the taint extended to the former GC’s partners and the law firm that represented them. In light of the taint, including the potential for prejudice at trial, the court found dismissal of the complaint to be an appropriate remedy. Finally, the court noted that the government itself – the real party in interest – was not affected by the dismissal and could still file a new case.