In Re Carpenter
337 Or. 226, 95 P.3d 203, 2004 Ore. LEXIS 484 (2004)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
A lawyer's conduct, even if occurring outside the practice of law and not constituting a criminal act, violates the disciplinary rule against dishonesty if there is a rational connection between the conduct and the lawyer's fitness to practice law, such as conduct that reflects adversely on the lawyer's trustworthiness and integrity.
Facts:
- In February 2001, an attorney, identified as 'the accused', accessed the Classmates.com website.
- The accused created an account in the name of a former high school classmate who was now a teacher and coach at their old high school.
- Under the teacher's identity, the accused posted a message stating, 'I am married to an incredibly beautiful woman, AND I get to hang out with high school chicks all day (and some evenings too). I have even been lucky with a few.'
- At the time of the posting, the accused was aware of community rumors that the teacher had engaged in an affair with a former student.
- An unknown person printed the online message and sent it to the high school's principal and school board members.
- As a result of the message, school officials initiated an inquiry into the teacher's conduct.
- The teacher reported the incident to the Oregon State Police, who conducted an investigation that ultimately identified the accused as the author of the post.
Procedural Posture:
- The Oregon State Bar filed a formal complaint against the accused attorney in the Disciplinary Board, alleging a violation of DR 1-102(A)(3).
- A trial panel of the Disciplinary Board heard the case and concluded that the rule did not extend to the accused's non-professional conduct, dismissing the complaint.
- The Oregon State Bar, as the petitioner, sought review of the trial panel's decision in the Supreme Court of Oregon.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does a lawyer engage in 'conduct involving dishonesty' in violation of Disciplinary Rule 1-102(A)(3) by impersonating another person on a website and posting a message falsely implying that person engaged in sexual misconduct, even when the conduct occurs outside the practice oflaw?
Opinions:
Majority - Per Curiam
Yes. A lawyer engages in 'conduct involving dishonesty' when his actions, even if non-professional, have a rational nexus to his fitness to practice law. The rule against dishonesty is not limited to a lawyer's professional activities or to conduct that is criminal. Dishonesty is a broad concept that includes conduct indicating untrustworthiness or a lack of integrity. By impersonating the teacher and posting a message that purported to be an admission to damaging rumors, the accused created a significant risk to the teacher's legal rights and reputation. This willingness to disregard another's legal rights reflects adversely on the accused's trustworthiness and integrity, characteristics essential to the practice of law, and therefore constitutes professional misconduct.
Dissenting - Balmer, J.
No. While the accused's conduct was boorish and showed a lack of judgment, it does not rise to the level of a disciplinary violation. To violate DR 1-102(A)(3), conduct must indicate a 'disposition' to lie, cheat, or defraud, not just be an isolated dishonest act. The accused's conduct was a brief, one-time incident, and there is no evidence of a pattern of dishonesty that would demonstrate he lacks the integrity necessary to practice law. The disciplinary rules should not extend to every lapse of judgment a lawyer makes in their private life, even one that harms another person.
Analysis:
This case establishes that a lawyer's professional responsibility extends to their private life, particularly in the digital realm. The court's 'nexus test' broadens the scope of disciplinary rules, making clear that conduct need not be criminal or related to client representation to be sanctionable if it reflects on core professional traits like trustworthiness. This decision sets a precedent for holding attorneys accountable for online impersonation, malicious 'pranks,' and other dishonest digital conduct. It signals that a lawyer's character is subject to scrutiny both on and offline, impacting how lawyers must conduct themselves in all facets of life.
