First, do no harm: The imperative of post-disaster lawyering

That maxim is usually associated with medicine, but it applies equally to post-disaster and crisis lawyering. In the wake of a wildfire, flood or public-health emergency, lawyers are expected to act quickly, project confidence and guide clients through systems under strain. Those conditions place extraordinary pressure on judgment. Clients are traumatized, uncertainty is unavoidable and decisions made in the moment can carry lasting consequences. Thus, in post-disaster lawyering, the lawyer's first and essential role is to protect clients from the urgency of the moment.

Crisis clients are not typical claimants. They are people experiencing trauma and destabilization of their lives. That trauma--whether caused by sudden displacement or prolonged instability--changes how they process information. It shortens time horizons, alters risk tolerance and distorts how advice is heard and remembered.

For example, a displaced wildfire survivor may want to accept a low-ball settlement simply to escape temporary housing. A criminal defendant facing delayed proceedings or extended pretrial detention may show interest in a plea deal that promises immediate release, even though the long-term consequences are severe. A family law client may agree to an "emergency" custody or visitation arrangement to stabilize the present, without fully appreciating how quickly temporary measures can harden into permanent expectations.

The ethical task in each case is the same: to remain present and responsive to immediate distress while ensuring that decisions driven by urgency do not foreclose outcomes the client has not yet had a fair opportunity to understand. (CRPC Rules 1.2(a), 1.4(b), and 2.1.)

"Do no harm" also requires that lawyers practicing in a crisis avoid creating preventable harm through conflicted representation, even when urgency and volume make careful screening inconvenient. (See CRPC Rule 1.7.) Disasters and pandemics often require lawyers to represent multiple clients with overlapping--but not identical--interests, coordinate with co-counsel across firms or jurisdictions, and to enter referral or fee-sharing arrangements under intense time pressure. In these situations, for both altruistic and pecuniary reasons, lawyers may be tempted to treat conflicts checks as a formality or something to be addressed later.

The Rules do not permit--and will not forgive--that approach. CRPC Rules 1.7 and 1.8 require early identification of conflicts, meaningful disclosure and informed written consent where appropriate. Clients under stress may agree to conflicted representation quickly, without appreciating how diverging interests could affect strategy or settlement down the line. Failure to disclose conflicts, or failure to obtain informed written consent to conflicted representation can lead to disciplinary liability as well as disgorgement of fees.

Crisis conditions also place unusual strain on lawyers' duties of communication, competence, diligence and confidentiality. Disasters do not only disrupt clients' lives; they can also disrupt law offices themselves. Client files may be damaged, destroyed or rendered inaccessible. Systems used to store or transmit confidential information may also fail.

Under CRPC Rules 1.1, 1.3, and 1.4, lawyers may have an obligation to notify clients when material portions of their files are lost. Lawyers may also have a duty to make reasonable efforts to reconstruct records from available sources, and to explain the consequences of what cannot be recovered. And where confidential client information is exposed--whether through compromised physical files, damaged storage facilities or insecure emergency communications--CRPC Rule 1.6 may require disclosure to the client.

Lawyers must recognize that crisis conditions do not automatically excuse departures from ethical compliance, even when those departures produce a favorable outcome for the client. The lawyer discipline system separates results from process. Disciplinary review may lag behind crises, but it does arrive. COVID made this plain. Complaints did not surge in 2020. They emerged years later, once memories settled, narratives hardened and emergency justifications lost their force.

For this reason, crisis lawyering requires practitioners to assume that key decisions, and key omissions, will be reviewed later, without the benefit of the emotional contexts in which they were made. Ethical compliance is not self-authenticating. It must be legible years later. That requires clear communication, careful documentation of advice and client choices, and vigilance in safeguarding client information even when ordinary practices are disrupted.

In the end, "first, do no harm" in crisis practice is not a call for hesitation or paralysis. It is a reminder of what endures after the emergency recedes. Disasters pass. Systems stabilize. What remains is the advice given when clarity was hardest to achieve--and whether it preserved the client's ability to choose with understanding rather than urgency. Lawyers cannot eliminate uncertainty in crises. They can, however, ensure that the temporary uncertainty does not calcify into permanent harm for their clients or themselves.

Ryan S. Little is the founder of Little Legal, a firm that advises lawyers and law firms across the U.S. on legal ethics, disciplinary and risk management matters. More about the firm can be found at www.LittleLegal.com.