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. CCHP's real accomplishment is the 2015 law signed by Gov Pence that basically outlaws any annexation that is forced where a 65% majority of landowners in the affected area disagree. Regardless of whether HP wins or loses, the citizens of Indiana will not have another fiasco like this. The law Gov Pence signed is a direct result of this malgovernance.

  2. I gave tempparry guardship to a friend of my granddaughter in 2012. I went to prison. I had custody. My daughter went to prison to. We are out. My daughter gave me custody but can get her back. She was not order to give me custody . but now we want granddaughter back from friend. She's 14 now. What rights do we have

  3. This sure is not what most who value good governance consider the Rule of Law to entail: "In a letter dated March 2, which Brizzi forwarded to IBJ, the commission dismissed the grievance “on grounds that there is not reasonable cause to believe that you are guilty of misconduct.”" Yet two month later reasonable cause does exist? (Or is the commission forging ahead, the need for reasonable belief be damned? -- A seeming violation of the Rules of Profession Ethics on the part of the commission) Could the rule of law theory cause one to believe that an explanation is in order? Could it be that Hoosier attorneys live under Imperial Law (which is also a t-word that rhymes with infamy) in which the Platonic guardians can do no wrong and never owe the plebeian class any explanation for their powerful actions. (Might makes it right?) Could this be a case of politics directing the commission, as celebrated IU Mauer Professor (the late) Patrick Baude warned was happening 20 years ago in his controversial (whisteblowing) ethics lecture on a quite similar topic: http://www.repository.law.indiana.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1498&context=ilj

  4. I have a case presently pending cert review before the SCOTUS that reveals just how Indiana regulates the bar. I have been denied licensure for life for holding the wrong views and questioning the grand inquisitors as to their duties as to state and federal constitutional due process. True story: https://www.scribd.com/doc/299040839/2016Petitionforcert-to-SCOTUS Shorter, Amici brief serving to frame issue as misuse of govt licensure: https://www.scribd.com/doc/312841269/Thomas-More-Society-Amicus-Brown-v-Ind-Bd-of-Law-Examiners

  5. Here's an idea...how about we MORE heavily regulate the law schools to reduce the surplus of graduates, driving starting salaries up for those new grads, so that we can all pay our insane amount of student loans off in a reasonable amount of time and then be able to afford to do pro bono & low-fee work? I've got friends in other industries, radiology for example, and their schools accept a very limited number of students so there will never be a glut of new grads and everyone's pay stays high. For example, my radiologist friend's school accepted just six new students per year.

ADVERTISEMENT