ILNews

IBA: Attorneys Beware - Conflicts of Interest and Attempts to Make a Buck

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

By Alex E. Gude, Bingham Greenebaum Doll LLP
 

gude-alex-mug Gude

Attorneys looking to profit from their experiences at trial take note: the principles behind the so-called “Son of Sam” laws, which prohibit criminal defendants from profiting from the publicity of their crimes, may apply to you too, at least during the pendency of a criminal case. That is the conclusion reached by Indiana Court of Appeals in the recent decision of Camm v. State, 957 N.E.2d 205 (Ind. Ct. App. 2011), which involved David Camm, who had twice been tried for the murder of his wife and two children.

The facts of the case are as follows. The elected prosecutor handled Camm’s second trial. At some point during the proceedings, the prosecutor decided to write a book about his experience in the case. Before the jury reached its verdict in the second trial, the prosecutor made contact, via his wife, with a literary agent who eventually helped him find a publisher for his proposed book. The prosecutor entered an agreement with the agent shortly after the verdict, and before sentencing. On March 28, 2006, the trial court sentenced Camm to life without parole.

In June of 2009, the prosecutor entered into an agreement with a publishing company and received an advance. Shortly thereafter, the Indiana Supreme Court reversed Camm’s second conviction. While a petition for rehearing of the decision was pending, the prosecutor sent an email to his publisher expressing concerns regarding the advance, while also noting that he was still “committed to writing the book.” The prosecutor cancelled the writing contract in September of 2009, and returned his advance. On November 30, 2009, the Supreme Court denied the state’s petition for rehearing, and the next day, the prosecutor re-filed the murder charges against Camm.

In response, Camm filed a petition requesting the appointment of a special prosecutor, arguing that the elected prosecutor had a conflict of interest. In reversing the trial court, which denied Camm’s petition, the Court of Appeals noted that the prosecutor’s cancellation of his literary contract prior to the third trial did not eliminate his conflict of interest. As the Court explained: “this is a bell that cannot be unrung. [The prosecutor] signed a contract to author and publish a book about the Camm case prior to Camm’s third retrial, and, in doing so, he permanently compromised his ability to advocate on behalf of the people of the state of Indiana in this trial.” According to the Court, the prosecutor’s decision precluded effective prosecution of Camm, because he provided Camm with an argument he would otherwise not have at trial –namely, that the prosecutor was influenced by his own personal interest when he decided to try the case for a third time.

The prosecutor’s decision to sign the literary contract was not the sole source of his conflict, however. His commitment to writing the book, as expressed in the email to his publisher, and comments made to the media, also created a conflict. As the Court explained: “[The prosecutor] should not have a personal interest in the case separate from his professional role as prosecutor. In other words [he] cannot be both committed to writing a book about the Camm case and serve as a prosecutor.”

The extent to which Camm’s holdings can be applied outside of its factual context are not clear, but they do raise interesting questions. How far does the Court’s prohibition on personal interests in cases extend? Does it preclude a prosecutor from taking on a case when he has a political or publicity interest in its outcome? Similarly, is there a conflict of interest when an attorney tries a case rather than settling it, in part, in order to gain publicity or notoriety? Only time will tell. In the meantime, attorneys should consider the ways in which they can temper their actual or perceived personal interests in the cases they handle for clients.•

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. Just an aside, but regardless of the outcome, I 'm proud of Judge William Hughes. He was the original magistrate on the Home place issue. He ruled for Home Place, and was primaried by Brainard for it. Their tool Poindexter failed to unseat Hughes, who won support for his honesty and courage throughout the county, and he was reelected Judge of Hamilton County's Superior Court. You can still stand for something and survive. Thanks, Judge Hughes!

  2. 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.

  3. 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

  4. 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

  5. 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

ADVERTISEMENT