News story here. Talk Left has views. There have been recent opinions by the ABA and the DC Bar about the ethics of responding to a former client's claim that you rendered ineffective assistance of counsel.
UPDATE. In the comments, Tigran Eldred writes: "For those not familiar with the ABA and DC Bar ethics opinions, the central question is whether a lawyer accused of ineffectiveness can disclose confidential information relating to the representation to prosecutors before being ordered to do so as part of a formal judicial proceeding. The ABA takes what I believe is the correct view: disclosure under Model Rule 1.6(b)(5)'s "self-defense" exception should only occur in a formal proceeding and after a judicial determination that disclosure is necessary to resolve the allegations of ineffectiveness. The DC Bar takes a less restrictive view, concluding that disclosure in advance of a formal proceeding and without court order can be appropriate (essentially leaving it to the lawyer accused of ineffectiveness to decide if extra-judicial disclosure is appropriate). The primary grounds for the DC Bar's conclusion are the distinctions between the language of Model Rule 1.6 and DC’s counterpart. I think these are distinctions without a difference. The primary basis for the ABA's conclusion is the risk that lawyers accused of ineffectiveness will be motivated to disclose more than is ethically appropriate in order to protect their own personal interests – a risk that the DC Bar opinion largely ignores. I am writing about these risks in an article for Hofstra Law School’s upcoming symposium on the ABA Death Penalty Guidelines. I hope to get the current draft on SSRN soon, but in the meantime would be happy to furnish it ([email protected]) to anyone who might be interested."