This ethical issue concerns conduct of defense counsel as it relates to the party he represents, opposing counsel, and the court. The case before the court is an admittedly juicy matter, as described by Judge Keys himself. Plaintiff is suing Defendant, alleging, among other things, discrimination. The parties had stipulated several provisions for the lengthy discovery process, including confidentiality if certain particularly sordid details were to be revealed. Defense counsel was aware that evidence of an affair may come out during discovery, and they wished for these details to be discussed by the attorneys before Plaintiffs’ counsel revealed certain information to the Plaintiff and others. Although the Court was aware of the agreement between the parties, defense counsel did not file any protective orders. During a deposition conducted by one of Plaintiff’s attorneys, a Plaintiff’s witness revealed to the lone present counsel that there was an ongoing affair between a Defendant and a third party. The witness informed counsel of statements she alleged were made by the Defendant’s mistress. The mistress’s alleged statements seemingly had great bearing on the case. Excitedly, the attorney immediately informed his fellow counsel and, in a consequent discussion with the Plaintiff, informed Plaintiff of certain sensitive information revealed during the deposition. Shortly after he spoke with Plaintiff, the deposing attorney called defense counsel to inform them that he had slipped and shared certain information with the Plaintiff. He also spoke with the Court to inform he had shared the information and that certain details were no longer confidential. Defense counsel also contacted the court, seeking remedy for Plaintiff’s actions, though they were not able to state exactly what remedy they might request. They inquired if an emergency motion might be available, but accepted that the situation did not rise to the level that is required for the signing of such a motion. The Court will file an emergency motion only where the motion results from unforeseen circumstances that arise suddenly and only where the motion is necessary to avoid irreparable harm. The Court advised that an emergency motion was likely to be denied. The Court encourages parties to work out any discovery disputes, and discourages the filing of discovery motions absent proven cause and substantial prior effort to work it out amongst the parties. Without a good faith effort, the Court will not consider a discovery motion. Local Rule 37.2 mandates this prior effort to be in-person or telephonic consultation. The parties had made significant discussion efforts throughout the discovery process and had been in agreement about most aspects. Because the process had been amicable, the defense counsel had chosen not to enter any protective orders, even though the parties verbally agreed upon such a proposed order. As such, defendant did not have any formal protection from Plaintiff’s counsel discussing the affair with Plaintiff and other parties. Recognizing the trust opposing counsel held in him, Plaintiff’s counsel took admirable steps to ensure that his loose lips did not cause any greater issue than the immediate shock effect on personally involved individuals. Plaintiff’s counsel took the best steps available to remedy his misstep. Though he violated the verbal agreement to not share certain information, he confessed to opposing counsel and to the court and acted in good faith, albeit after the fact. Once the agreement was breached, he approached the situation in an ethical matter. As such, his actions did not a grave effect on the case, and he was able to stop the rumors from becoming too great. At this point, the court does not need to enter any orders to remedy the situation, and the court should find that counsel satisfactorily resolved the issues amongst themselves.