Elle Fanning's Discretion Reveals a Hidden NDA Ethics Risk

The useful thing about Elle Fanning’s Discretion is not that it makes an NDA look sinister. Plenty of legal dramas can do that. The sharper hook is that the Paramount+ series puts a summer associate in Dallas inside the same secrecy system she is trying to understand: Fanning plays a young lawyer drawn into an investigation involving an NDA, Nicole Kidman plays a senior partner, and the show’s announced premise asks “who gets to keep secrets, and at what cost.” For readers searching for “elle fanning discretion legal drama 2026 cast and plot,” that is the verified center of the project so far, not a full plot synopsis.

The available show facts are still pre-release facts. Discretion is an A24-produced Paramount+ legal drama based on Chandler Baker’s short story, with Baker serving as showrunner; the story was described in acquisition coverage as inspired by her own experience as a corporate lawyer processing NDAs. The series is set in Dallas, Matt Shakman is attached to direct, Josh Lucas joined the cast in July 2026, and the release window currently announced is 2027, with no narrower premiere date available from the materials used here.[1][2][3]

That is enough entertainment context to make the training problem concrete, and not enough to treat the fictional NDA as if its clauses are already known. Chandler Baker’s short story has not been publicly published, and all current plot information comes from adaptation announcements. The better legal question is narrower: if a Dallas lawyer, summer associate, or in-house counsel is handed an NDA connected to a dispute or settlement, what must they ask before signing, drafting, or approving it?

This article is risk analysis and training material, not legal advice. The primary sources matter because the safest-sounding clause in a confidentiality document may be the one that creates the ethics problem.

The Texas Rule Is Not Subtle About Non-Disparagement

For a Dallas-set legal drama, the most useful real-world source is State Bar of Texas Professional Ethics Committee Opinion No. 708, issued in May 2025. It addresses whether Texas lawyers may agree, as part of settling a client matter, to non-disparagement and non-disclosure provisions that limit what the lawyer may say or use after the settlement.[4]

The opinion’s answer on non-disparagement clauses is unusually direct: a Texas lawyer may not agree to a settlement provision that prohibits the lawyer from disparaging the opposing party or its counsel. The committee concluded that such a clause violates Texas Disciplinary Rule of Professional Conduct 5.06(b), which prohibits a lawyer from offering or making an agreement that restricts a lawyer’s right to practice as part of settling a client controversy.[4]

That conclusion is more severe than the usual “be careful with broad language” warning. In the covered settlement context, the problem is not that the clause is awkward, unattractive, or potentially overused. The problem is that Texas ethics guidance treats the promise itself as a prohibited restriction on the lawyer’s future practice.

The training point should be blunt because junior lawyers are often taught the opposite by habit. A non-disparagement clause is not just another confidentiality provision with a softer name. It controls evaluative speech. It can prevent a lawyer from warning future clients, describing patterns of conduct, criticizing litigation behavior, or candidly assessing an adversary. In the Texas opinion’s settlement setting, that kind of restraint crosses the Rule 5.06(b) line.[4]

Non-Disclosure Is Different, But Only If It Stays Inside Existing Duties

The Texas opinion does not say every confidentiality clause in a settlement is forbidden. It draws a line between a lawyer’s existing confidentiality obligations and new contractual restraints that narrow the lawyer’s future professional freedom.

A non-disclosure provision may be permissible if it merely tracks duties the lawyer already owes under Texas Rules 1.05 and 1.09. Those rules concern confidential information of current and former clients. A settlement term that says, in practical effect, “the lawyer will continue to comply with existing professional confidentiality duties” does not add much. It restates a boundary that already exists.[4]

The ethics risk appears when the NDA goes further. Opinion 708 identifies provisions that would prohibit a lawyer from disclosing general knowledge, information about the fact of a past representation, or experience gained during the matter as improper restrictions if they exceed the lawyer’s existing duties under Rules 1.05 and 1.09. In that setting, the clause no longer protects a client secret; it limits what the lawyer can carry into future practice.[4]

That distinction is where many “standard” forms fail as teaching documents. A summer associate may see the word “confidentiality” and assume the provision is conservative. A risk lawyer should see a set of operational questions: Does this language cover information that is not client confidential information? Does it bar the lawyer from saying they handled the matter? Does it prevent the lawyer from using general experience later? Does it restrict criticism rather than disclosure? Does it bind the lawyer personally, rather than merely binding the client?

The ABA Frame: Settlement Terms Cannot Buy a Lawyer’s Discretion

ABA Formal Opinion 00-417 gives the national frame, though it does not replace state-specific rules. The opinion addresses settlement provisions that restrict a lawyer’s use of information learned during a representation. It concludes that a lawyer may not agree to a provision that would give the lawyer “significantly less discretion” in using information than a lawyer who was not bound by the settlement restriction would have.[5]

That phrase is useful because it moves the analysis away from labels. A clause may be called confidentiality, non-use, cooperation, no-comment, non-assistance, or non-disparagement. The working question is whether the lawyer’s future professional judgment has been materially narrowed as part of resolving a client matter.

The ABA opinion is also careful about the reason for the rule. Settlement terms cannot become a private market for disabling lawyers. A party may want finality. A defendant may want quiet. Opposing counsel may want to reduce the chance that the same lawyer brings a similar case later. Those commercial preferences do not erase the professional rule against restricting a lawyer’s right to practice.[5]

Texas Opinion 708 makes that national principle more concrete for Texas lawyers. It does not merely ask whether the provision feels burdensome. It separates non-disparagement, which it treats as prohibited in the settlement context, from non-disclosure language that may survive only if it does not exceed existing confidentiality obligations.[4]

Why the Summer Associate Premise Works as Training

The summer associate angle matters because this is exactly where institutional habits can hide risk. The least powerful person in the room often receives the broadest instruction: sign this, do not talk about the matter, do not make trouble, everyone signs these. The document is treated as an administrative step before anyone has explained which promises a lawyer is professionally allowed to make.

A senior partner character, especially one played by Nicole Kidman, will naturally draw attention when the show arrives. For firm training, the more important power structure is quieter: who drafted the clause, who reviewed it, who told the junior lawyer it was standard, and who will later be blamed if the promise conflicts with professional-conduct duties.

That does not require assuming anything about the final plot of Discretion. The promotional premise is enough: a young lawyer encounters an NDA system from the inside. A good training session can use that premise without pretending the series is a case study.

For firm use, the better companion material is sanctions and confidentiality discipline, not gossip about a pre-release series. Firms that maintain a risk database or use a resource such as Risk Digest can pair NDA review with documented confidentiality-duty failures. The point is to show junior lawyers that confidentiality is not merely a client-service instinct; it is a regulated professional boundary.

The Boundary Problem: Settlement NDA Guidance Is Not Every NDA

There is one necessary limitation. Texas Opinion 708 addresses settlement agreements in client controversies. It is not, by its own terms, a universal opinion on every employment NDA, lateral-hire agreement, engagement-letter confidentiality provision, vendor contract, or internal investigation protocol.[4]

That limitation should not be used to ignore the opinion. It should shape the way lawyers extend it. If the clause appears in a settlement agreement and binds counsel, Texas Opinion 708 is directly on point. If the clause appears elsewhere, the safer training question is still the same: does the term restrict the lawyer beyond existing professional confidentiality duties or impair the lawyer’s future right to practice?

A hypothetical example is enough to test the difference. Suppose a lawyer is asked to sign language saying they will not disclose client confidential information learned in a matter. That may simply restate a duty the lawyer already has. Suppose the language instead says the lawyer may never identify the type of matter handled, discuss general litigation tactics observed, assist any future client with similar claims, or make negative statements about an opposing party. Those promises raise a different ethics question because they reach beyond client confidentiality into future professional use, speech, and practice.

The drafting habit to correct is breadth for breadth’s sake. Broader language is not automatically safer when the signer is a lawyer. It may create a second problem while trying to solve the first.

A Firm-Ready Review Sequence

A useful NDA review for lawyers does not begin with redlining style. It begins with classification.

1. Identify the context: settlement, employment, engagement, vendor, investigation, transaction, or internal policy.
2. Identify who is bound: client, law firm, individual lawyer, former lawyer, expert, consultant, or staff member.
3. Separate non-disparagement from non-disclosure; do not let evaluative speech restrictions hide inside confidentiality language.
4. Compare each confidentiality promise against duties the lawyer already owes under the applicable professional-conduct rules.
5. Flag language restricting general experience, future representations, the fact of past representation, or assistance to future clients.
6. Escalate state-specific questions before signature; ABA guidance supplies a baseline, not a safe harbor.

For Texas lawyers reviewing settlement language, the escalation point should be early. If the provision asks counsel not to disparage a party or counsel, Opinion 708 treats that as prohibited. If the provision asks counsel not to disclose information, the next question is whether it merely tracks Rules 1.05 and 1.09 or restricts something more.[4]

For lawyers outside Texas, the ABA opinion supplies a practical screen: would this settlement term leave the lawyer with significantly less discretion than another lawyer would have in using information professionally? If yes, the term needs state-law ethics review before anyone calls it routine.[5]

What to Take From Discretion Before It Premieres

The bidding-war details, A24 label, Paramount+ platform, and Fanning-Kidman pairing explain why Discretion may reach lawyers who would never open an ethics opinion voluntarily. That is useful. It is not the authority.

The authority comes from the rules and opinions that decide whether a lawyer may make the promise at all. In Texas settlement practice, non-disparagement clauses for lawyers are the cleanest red flag. Non-disclosure clauses require closer reading: they may be acceptable when they preserve existing confidentiality duties, but they become dangerous when they restrict general experience, past representation, future practice, or professional discretion.

Use the show as the prompt. Train on the clause.

References

1. Deadline, Oct. 2025, coverage of A24 and Paramount+ acquiring Discretion with Nicole Kidman, Elle Fanning, and Chandler Baker
2. Deadline, July 2026, coverage of Josh Lucas joining Discretion
3. The Hollywood Reporter, coverage of Matt Shakman directing Discretion
4. State Bar of Texas, May 2025, Opinion No. 708
5. American Bar Association, Formal Opinion 00-417