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
2015 Distinguished Barrister &
Up and Coming Lawyer Reception

Tuesday, May 5, 2015 • 4:30 - 7:00 pm
Learn More


ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. I'm not sure what's more depressing: the fact that people would pay $35,000 per year to attend an unaccredited law school, or the fact that the same people "are hanging in there and willing to follow the dean’s lead in going forward" after the same school fails to gain accreditation, rendering their $70,000 and counting education worthless. Maybe it's a good thing these people can't sit for the bar.

  2. Such is not uncommon on law school startups. Students and faculty should tap Bruce Green, city attorney of Lufkin, Texas. He led a group of studnets and faculty and sued the ABA as a law student. He knows the ropes, has advised other law school startups. Very astute and principled attorney of unpopular clients, at least in his past, before Lufkin tapped him to run their show.

  3. Not that having the appellate records on Odyssey won't be welcome or useful, but I would rather they first bring in the stray counties that aren't yet connected on the trial court level.

  4. Aristotle said 350 bc: "The most hated sort, and with the greatest reason, is usury, which makes a gain out of money itself, and not from the natural object of it. For money was intended to be used in exchange, but not to increase at interest. And this term interest, which means the birth of money from money, is applied to the breeding of money because the offspring resembles the parent. Wherefore of an modes of getting wealth this is the most unnatural.

  5. Oh yes, lifetime tenure. The Founders gave that to the federal judges .... at that time no federal district courts existed .... so we are talking the Supreme Court justices only in context ....so that they could rule against traditional marriage and for the other pet projects of the sixties generation. Right. Hmmmm, but I must admit, there is something from that time frame that seems to recommend itself in this context ..... on yes, from a document the Founders penned in 1776: " He has refused his Assent to Laws, the most wholesome and necessary for the public good."

ADVERTISEMENT