ILNews

Bell/Gaerte: 3 things to know about ethical responsibility for others’ conduct

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

Bell Gaerte 3 thingsMuch has already been written about the recent Matter of Anonymous that was issued by the Indiana Supreme Court April 11. 6 N.E.3rd 903 (Ind. 2014). In this case, the respondent was found to have violated the Indiana Rules of Professional Conduct, including Rule 7.1, for making “a false or misleading communication about the lawyer or the lawyer’s services” due to various testimonials, settlements and verdicts that appeared on a website. 6 N.E.3rd at slip op. 6.

While that seems fairly standard, what made this case stand out from a more run-of-the-mill disciplinary advertising decision was that the “settlements, verdicts, or testimonials” on the website were not the respondent’s. Id. at 3. Instead, the website was run by an organization that entered into a license agreement with the respondent and whose website identified the respondent as the organization’s exclusive source for legal services in Indiana. Id. at 2.

The website posted the organization’s results and provided testimonials like the organization “changed my life in a big way and my family received our fair share or justice.” Id. at 3. The Anonymous decision noted that while none of these communications “related to the Respondent, the website did not disclose that they did not relate to Respondent.” Id. The court reasoned that “the average viewer could not differentiate between Respondent and the statements about [the organization] on the [organization’s] website and that Respondent is therefore responsible for objectionable content on the website.” Id. at 6 (brackets added). (Read more about the case and the attorney disciplined.)

This is not the only time someone in Indiana has been disciplined for the conduct of another. Here are three things to know about the ethical responsibility for the conduct of others.

1. Local counsel can be responsible for co-counsel’s statement in a pleading

In Matter of M.W., 777 N.E.2d 714, 717 (Ind. 2002), the respondent was found to have violated Rule 8.2 of the Indiana Rules of Professional Conduct for making statements “with reckless disregard as to the truth or falsity concerning the integrity of a three-judge panel of the Court of Appeals.” Specifically, the court took issue with statements made in a footnote in a petition to transfer. Id. at 716-7.
 

LEARN MORE
James J. Bell also provides his unique insights to life and the law as The Amateur Life Coach at www.iclef.org. Videos 2 and 5 relate to the issues discussed here.

However, the respondent did not make the statements in the footnote. Specifically, the court noted that “the language of the footnote was not authored by the respondent but by an out-of-state co-counsel.” Matter of M.W., 782 N.E.2d 985, 987 (Ind. 2003). In making this ruling, the court cited to the fact that the signing and filing the brief at issue constituted “joint responsibility pursuant to Indiana Admission and Discipline Rule 3(2)(d).” Id. Therefore, a lawyer can be held ethically responsible for the statements of co-counsel in a pleading.

2. An attorney is responsible for the actions of his or her staff

Let’s say your secretary posts something confidential on Facebook, your bookkeeper bungles the accounting on your trust account or the private investigator you hired has a penchant for interviewing represented people about the matter for which they are represented. If these three people were lawyers, your secretary would have violated Rule 1.6 of the Indiana Rules of Professional Conduct, your bookkeeper may have violated Rule 1.15 of the Indiana Rules of Professional Conduct and your investigator would have violated Rule 4.2 of the Indiana Rules of Professional Conduct.

Good thing they are not lawyers. If the Disciplinary Commission calls you, can you successfully argue, “It was not me, it was them?” Maybe. Under Rule 5.3 of the Indiana Rules of Professional Conduct, a lawyer with “managerial authority” “shall make reasonable efforts to ensure that the firm has in effect measures giving reasonable assurance that the person’s conduct is compatible with” the Rules of Professional Conduct. So, if you can show your “reasonable efforts” to supervise your staff, you should be able to avoid ethical responsibility for the actions of your staff.

3. An attorney is responsible for the actions of his or her marketing agent

So now we have to come back to advertising. Without going into too much detail regarding the advertising rules, the rules don’t allow you to talk about past performance, make references to results or give testimonials. (Although Rule 7.2 does allow an attorney to boast that he or she has malpractice insurance, which is always a big selling point with clients.) So what is a marketing agent supposed to do besides gouge his or her eyes out?

I am not sure. However, you could see how a trained marketing agent, who wants to exercise his or her talents, would feel restrained by these Rules of Professional Conduct and may feel inclined to ignore the rules at your peril. Under Rule 5.3, you are responsible for the marketing agent’s actions. Many grievances have been issued when the marketing agent runs afoul of these rules and the supervising attorney is asleep at the switch. If you hire a marketing agent to do your ads, make sure you make the final call on what is produced.•

__________

James J. Bell and K. Michael Gaerte are attorneys with Bingham Greenebaum Doll LLP. They assist lawyers and judges with professional liability and legal ethics issues. They also practice in criminal defense and are regular speakers on criminal defense and ethics topics. They can be reached at jbell@bgdlegal.com or mgaerte@bgdlegal.com. The opinions expressed are those of the authors.

ADVERTISEMENT

Post a comment to this story

COMMENTS POLICY
We reserve the right to remove any post that we feel is obscene, profane, vulgar, racist, sexually explicit, abusive, or hateful.
 
You are legally responsible for what you post and your anonymity is not guaranteed.
 
Posts that insult, defame, threaten, harass or abuse other readers or people mentioned in Indiana Lawyer editorial content are also subject to removal. Please respect the privacy of individuals and refrain from posting personal information.
 
No solicitations, spamming or advertisements are allowed. Readers may post links to other informational websites that are relevant to the topic at hand, but please do not link to objectionable material.
 
We may remove messages that are unrelated to the topic, encourage illegal activity, use all capital letters or are unreadable.
 

Messages that are flagged by readers as objectionable will be reviewed and may or may not be removed. Please do not flag a post simply because you disagree with it.

Sponsored by
ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. Call it unauthorized law if you must, a regulatory wrong, but it was fraud and theft well beyond that, a seeming crime! "In three specific cases, the hearing officer found that Westerfield did little to no work for her clients but only issued a partial refund or no refund at all." That is theft by deception, folks. "In its decision to suspend Westerfield, the Supreme Court noted that she already had a long disciplinary history dating back to 1996 and had previously been suspended in 2004 and indefinitely suspended in 2005. She was reinstated in 2009 after finally giving the commission a response to the grievance for which she was suspended in 2004." WOW -- was the Indiana Supreme Court complicit in her fraud? Talk about being on notice of a real bad actor .... "Further, the justices noted that during her testimony, Westerfield was “disingenuous and evasive” about her relationship with Tope and attempted to distance herself from him. They also wrote that other aggravating factors existed in Westerfield’s case, such as her lack of remorse." WOW, and yet she only got 18 months on the bench, and if she shows up and cries for them in a year and a half, and pays money to JLAP for group therapy ... back in to ride roughshod over hapless clients (or are they "marks") once again! Aint Hoosier lawyering a great money making adventure!!! Just live for the bucks, even if filthy lucre, and come out a-ok. ME on the other hand??? Lifetime banishment for blowing the whistle on unconstitutional governance. Yes, had I ripped off clients or had ANY disciplinary history for doing that I would have fared better, most likely, as that it would have revealed me motivated by Mammon and not Faith. Check it out if you doubt my reading of this, compare and contrast the above 18 months with my lifetime banishment from court, see appendix for Bar Examiners report which the ISC adopted without substantive review: https://www.scribd.com/doc/299040839/2016Petitionforcert-to-SCOTUS

  2. Wow, over a quarter million dollars? That is a a lot of commissary money! Over what time frame? Years I would guess. Anyone ever try to blow the whistle? Probably not, since most Hoosiers who take notice of such things realize that Hoosier whistleblowers are almost always pilloried. If someone did blow the whistle, they were likely fired. The persecution of whistleblowers is a sure sign of far too much government corruption. Details of my own personal experience at the top of Hoosier governance available upon request ... maybe a "fake news" media outlet will have the courage to tell the stories of Hoosier whistleblowers that the "real" Hoosier media (cough) will not deign to touch. (They are part of the problem.)

  3. So if I am reading it right, only if and when African American college students agree to receive checks labeling them as "Negroes" do they receive aid from the UNCF or the Quaker's Educational Fund? In other words, to borrow from the Indiana Appellate Court, "the [nonprofit] supposed to be [their] advocate, refers to [students] in a racially offensive manner. While there is no evidence that [the nonprofits] intended harm to [African American students], the harm was nonetheless inflicted. [Black students are] presented to [academia and future employers] in a racially offensive manner. For these reasons, [such] performance [is] deficient and also prejudice[ial]." Maybe even DEPLORABLE???

  4. I'm the poor soul who spent over 10 years in prison with many many other prisoners trying to kill me for being charged with a sex offense THAT I DID NOT COMMIT i was in jail for a battery charge for helping a friend leave a boyfriend who beat her I've been saying for over 28 years that i did not and would never hurt a child like that mine or anybody's child but NOBODY wants to believe that i might not be guilty of this horrible crime or think that when i say that ALL the paperwork concerning my conviction has strangely DISAPPEARED or even when the long beach judge re-sentenced me over 14 months on a already filed plea bargain out of another districts court then had it filed under a fake name so i could not find while trying to fight my conviction on appeal in a nut shell people are ALWAYS quick to believe the worst about some one well I DID NOT HURT ANY CHILD EVER IN MY LIFE AND HAVE SAID THIS FOR ALMOST 30 YEARS please if anybody can me get some kind of justice it would be greatly appreciated respectfully written wrongly accused Brian Valenti

  5. A high ranking Indiana supreme Court operative caught red handed leading a group using the uber offensive N word! She must denounce or be denounced! (Or not since she is an insider ... rules do not apply to them). Evidence here: http://m.indianacompanies.us/friends-educational-fund-for-negroes.364110.company.v2#top_info

ADVERTISEMENT