Ethics

WARNING: Only serious legal ethics wonks will want to read this post.  (It was inspired by a student's recent query.) 

Imagine that I am a lawyer in Massachusetts, where Rule 1.6 says that I can disclose confidential information "to prevent the commission of a criminal or fraudulent act that the lawyer reasonably believes is likely to result in death or substantial bodily harm."  Assume that I know of conduct that may result in somebody's death, but I am unsure whether the conduct is criminal or fraudulent.  Accordingly, I am unsure whether I have the discretion to disclose.

To figure it out, I call a lawyer, say someone I know who specializes in criminal law, to get her advice.  (Although Massachusetts has not adopted Rule 1.6(b)(4), I'm assuming that a consultation of this sort would be ethically permissible.)  Let's also assume that my friend is not in Massachusetts and is in a jurisdiction that has adopted Model Rule 1.6, which no longer has a "criminal act" condition to trigger discretionary disclosures.  

My friend tells me that the act in question is not criminal, so I can't disclose under the Massachusetts Rule.  My lawyer friend, however, can disclose under her jurisdiction's version of Rule 1.6.  Can my friend disclose this information?  And if so, isn't this a potential way around the stricter confidentiality provisions that exist in some states?  (Notably, the Massachusetts rules have no choice of law provision, and let's assume that my friend's jurisdiction also lacks such a provision. )

Some questions.  Can my lawyer friend disclose?  If so, are there any viable legal malpractice claims against her or me?  If I knew in advance that the lawyer would probably tell me that the act was not criminal and that she would disclose under her own jurisdiction's rules, have I violated my own jurisdiction's confidentiality provisions? I considered making this into an exam question, but my students would never forgive me.  Thoughts?