ILNews

High court privately reprimands attorney

Back to TopE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

The Indiana Supreme Court has privately reprimanded an attorney for improperly revealing information about a former client when socializing with friends.

The justices released the per curiam opinion Friday, In the Matter of: Anonymous, No. 18S00-0902-DI-73, in which they found the anonymous attorney violated Professional Conduct Rule 1.9(c)(2). The attorney represented an organization that employed “AB,” which is how the attorney became acquainted with her. AB and her husband were involved in an altercation, police were called, and her husband claimed AB threatened to harm him. A month later AB called the attorney, told her about the allegation, and that she had separated from her husband. In a second phone call later that month, AB asked the attorney for a referral to a family law attorney, which included the name of an attorney in the respondent’s firm.

AB retained that attorney and filed a divorce petition; the couple later reconciled and AB requested the petition be dismissed, which ended the firm’s representation of her.

When socializing with friends after this, one of which was also a friend of AB, the respondent told them about AB’s filing for divorce and her husband’s accusation. The respondent didn’t know AB had reconciled with her husband. The attorney also encouraged AB’s friend to contact AB because she was concerned. When AB learned what the attorney had said, she filed a grievance.

The attorney has no disciplinary history and was cooperative with the Disciplinary Commission.

The respondent argued to the hearing officer that AB initially gave her the information at issue to seek personal rather than professional advice, so the information wasn’t confidential and her later relationship with the firm didn’t change its nature. But the information was disclosed not long before the second phone call in which AB wanted an attorney referral, and she became at prospective client under Rule 1.18, which required confidentiality.

It also doesn’t matter that AB told this same information to some of her co-workers or that the information at issue could be discovered by searching various public records and the Internet.

“True, the filing of a divorce petition is a matter of public record, but Respondent revealed highly sensitive details of accusations AB's husband made against her to the police. There is no evidence that this information was contained in any public record,” the justices wrote. “An attorney has a duty to prospective, current, and former clients to scrupulously avoid revelation of such information, even if, as may have been the case here, the attorney is motivated by personal concern for the client.”
 

ADVERTISEMENT

Sponsored by
ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. Diocese of Fort Wayne-South Bend in December, but U.S. District Judge Robert Miller later reduced that to about $540,000 to put the damages for suffering under the statutory cap of $300,000.

  2. I was trying to remember, how did marriage get gay in Kentucky, did the people vote for it? Ah no, of course not. It was imposed by judicial fiat. The voted-for official actually represents the will of the majority in the face of an unelected federal judiciary. But democracy only is just a slogan for the powerful, they trot it out when they want and call it bigotry etc when they don't.

  3. Ah yes... Echoes of 1963 as a ghostly George Wallace makes his stand at the Schoolhouse door. We now know about the stand of personal belief over service to all constituents at the Carter County Clerk door. The results are the same, bigotry unable to follow the directions of the courts and the courts win. Interesting to watch the personal belief take a back seat rather than resign from a perception of local power to make the statement.

  4. An oath of office, does it override the conscience? That is the defense of overall soldier who violates higher laws, isnt it? "I was just following orders" and "I swore an oath of loyalty to der Fuhrer" etc. So this is an interesting case of swearing a false oath and then knowing that it was wrong and doing the right thing. Maybe they should chop her head off too like the "king's good servant-- but God's first" like St Thomas More. ...... We wont hold our breath waiting for the aclu or other "civil liberterians" to come to her defense since they are all arrayed on the gay side, to a man or should I say to a man and womyn?

  5. Perhaps we should also convene a panel of independent anthropological experts to study the issues surrounding this little-known branch of human sacrifice?

ADVERTISEMENT