ILNews

Court split in public defender 'firm' issue

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

In a disciplinary action released Wednesday by the Indiana Supreme Court, the justices disagreed as to whether two public defenders who worked part time in the same public defender office of Putnam County were "associated in a firm."

James R. Recker was charged by the Indiana Supreme Court Disciplinary Commission for violating Indiana Professional Conduct Rules 1.6(a), 1.8(b), and 1.8(k), which deal with revealing information relating to representation of a client without informed consent and prohibitions that apply to an attorney in one firm apply to all attorneys in the firm.

Recker and Laura Paul worked as part-time public defenders in Putnam County and shared office space provided by the county. Recker was appointed to represent A.B. in a CHINS proceeding, who was sharing a holding cell with X.Y., who Paul was appointed to represent. A.B. also had a private attorney, James Holder, for a criminal case. When Paul learned from the Putnam County prosecutor that her client would offer up some details in A.B.'s criminal case in exchange for a deal, she spoke with Recker about her situation because she hadn't experienced it before and mentioned A.B.'s name but not her client's name. She didn't know Recker was representing A.B.; Recker thought her client was a private client.

Recker then called Holder and told him A.B. was talking about his case. Paul's client was eventually removed from the shared cell and testified at A.B.'s murder trial.

In In the matter of James R. Recker, No. 49S00-0506-DI-302, the majority determined Recker didn't commit the charged attorney misconduct because he and Paul weren't members of a law firm while providing indigent defense services in the county. Because they weren't associated in the same firm, Recker didn't owe a duty to X.Y. when he told Holder the information he learned from Paul. The majority examined the definition of and comments related to "law firm" under the Professional Conduct Rules and its ruling in Matter of Sexson, 613 N.E.2d 841 (Ind. 1993), to support its decision. Although they shared common space, staff, letterhead, and a phone line, Recker and Paul didn't choose that situation as provided by the county and didn't hold themselves out for business to the public at the public defender office location.

The majority noted there is no uniform system of providing indigent defense among Indiana's counties, but under the Putnam County system, they aren't deemed to be members of a firm, "at least for the purpose of the rule that information acquired by one lawyer in a firm is attributed to another," the per curium opinion stated.

Justice Frank Sullivan dissented because he believed the majority employed an "overly technical" and "near-sighted" definition of "firm" and lost sight of the principal interest at stake: the inviolability of client confidences.

Under the majority's opinion, Sullivan argued that if Recker overheard a conversation between Paul and one of her clients, he would have no ethical obligation to keep the information confidential. The justice questioned how the hallmark of trust of the client-lawyer relationship can exist if the lawyer in the next cubicle can reveal that client's secrets simply because the lawyers aren't technically in the same "firm."

Sullivan believed that Recker had an ethical duty to keep confidential the client information disclosed to him by Paul and for that, he violated rules 1.6(a) and 1.8(k).

The Supreme Court expressed no opinion about whether Paul violated her duty to X.Y. because that issue wasn't before the court.

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

facebook - twitter on Facebook & Twitter

Indiana State Bar Association

Indianapolis Bar Association

Evansville Bar Association

Allen County Bar Association

Indiana Lawyer on Facebook

facebook
ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. Family court judges never fail to surprise me with their irrational thinking. First of all any man who abuses his wife is not fit to be a parent. A man who can't control his anger should not be allowed around his child unsupervised period. Just because he's never been convicted of abusing his child doesn't mean he won't and maybe he hasn't but a man that has such poor judgement and control is not fit to parent without oversight - only a moron would think otherwise. Secondly, why should the mother have to pay? He's the one who made the poor decisions to abuse and he should be the one to pay the price - monetarily and otherwise. Yes it's sad that the little girl may be deprived of her father, but really what kind of father is he - the one that abuses her mother the one that can't even step up and do what's necessary on his own instead the abused mother is to pay for him???? What is this Judge thinking? Another example of how this world rewards bad behavior and punishes those who do right. Way to go Judge - NOT.

  2. Right on. Legalize it. We can take billions away from the drug cartels and help reduce violence in central America and more unwanted illegal immigration all in one fell swoop. cut taxes on the savings from needless incarcerations. On and stop eroding our fourth amendment freedom or whatever's left of it.

  3. "...a switch from crop production to hog production "does not constitute a significant change."??? REALLY?!?! Any judge that cannot see a significant difference between a plant and an animal needs to find another line of work.

  4. Why do so many lawyers get away with lying in court, Jamie Yoak?

  5. Future generations will be amazed that we prosecuted people for possessing a harmless plant. The New York Times came out in favor of legalization in Saturday's edition of the newspaper.

ADVERTISEMENT