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
ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. Why in the world would someone need a person to correct a transcript when a realtime court reporter could provide them with a transcript (rough draft) immediately?

  2. This article proved very enlightening. Right ahead of sitting the LSAT for the first time, I felt a sense of relief that a score of 141 was admitted to an Indiana Law School and did well under unique circumstances. While my GPA is currently 3.91 I fear standardized testing and hope that I too will get a good enough grade for acceptance here at home. Thanks so much for this informative post.

  3. No, Ron Drake is not running against incumbent Larry Bucshon. That’s totally wrong; and destructively misleading to say anything like that. All political candidates, including me in the 8th district, are facing voters, not incumbents. You should not firewall away any of voters’ options. We need them all now more than ever. Right? Y’all have for decades given the Ds and Rs free 24/7/365 coverage of taxpayer-supported promotion at the expense of all alternatives. That’s plenty of head-start, money-in-the-pocket advantage for parties and people that don’t need any more free immunities, powers, privileges and money denied all others. Now it’s time to play fair and let voters know that there are, in fact, options. Much, much better, and not-corrupt options. Liberty or Bust! Andy Horning Libertarian for IN08 USA House of Representatives Freedom, Indiana

  4. A great idea! There is absolutely no need to incarcerate HRC's so-called "super predators" now that they can be adequately supervised on the streets by the BLM czars.

  5. One of the only qualms I have with this article is in the first paragraph, that heroin use is especially dangerous because it is highly addictive. All opioids are highly addictive. It is why, after becoming addicted to pain medications prescribed by their doctors for various reasons, people resort to heroin. There is a much deeper issue at play, and no drug use should be taken lightly in this category.

ADVERTISEMENT