In Re Lamberis
93 Ill. 2d 222, 443 N.E.2d 549, 66 Ill. Dec. 623 (1982)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
An attorney's plagiarism of scholarly works in an academic context, although occurring outside the practice of law, constitutes conduct involving dishonesty, deceit, and misrepresentation that warrants professional discipline.
Facts:
- Anthony Byron Lamberis, an attorney admitted to the Illinois bar, was enrolled in an LL.M. degree program at Northwestern University School of Law.
- The degree program required the submission of a thesis.
- After an initial thesis was rejected, Lamberis submitted a new 93-page thesis in June 1978.
- For this new thesis, Lamberis incorporated, substantially verbatim and without attribution, large excerpts from two published books: J. Carr's 'The Law of Electronic Surveillance' and M. Paulsen's 'The Problems of Electronic Eavesdropping'.
- A substantial portion of the thesis Lamberis represented as his own work was in fact the work of other authors.
- In June 1979, Northwestern University notified Lamberis of potential honor code violations regarding the thesis.
- Following student disciplinary proceedings, the Northwestern University School of Law faculty voted to expel Lamberis for plagiarism.
Procedural Posture:
- Northwestern University School of Law filed a complaint with the Attorney Registration and Disciplinary Commission.
- The Administrator of the Commission initiated a disciplinary proceeding against respondent Anthony Byron Lamberis.
- The Hearing Board found that Lamberis knowingly plagiarized and recommended that he be censured.
- The Review Board adopted the Hearing Board's factual findings but, in a divided vote, recommended that Lamberis be suspended for six months.
- The case then came before the Supreme Court of Illinois for a final ruling on the appropriate discipline.
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 an attorney's act of knowingly plagiarizing substantial portions of published works for a master's degree thesis constitute professional misconduct subject to discipline under the rule prohibiting conduct involving dishonesty, fraud, deceit, or misrepresentation?
Opinions:
Majority - Justice Simon
Yes. An attorney's act of plagiarism in an academic context constitutes professional misconduct involving dishonesty that warrants discipline. Although the conduct occurred outside the practice of law, the court has a responsibility to supervise attorney conduct that affects professional competence or the dignity of the legal profession. The court found Lamberis's plagiarism to be a clear act of deceit, aggravated by the fact that its purpose was to obtain an advanced law degree that would have enhanced his professional standing. The court reasoned that honesty is a fundamental value of the legal profession, and such a profound act of dishonesty cannot go undisciplined. However, in determining the appropriate sanction, the court considered mitigating factors, including Lamberis's unblemished record in private practice, the lack of direct harm to any specific individual, and the fact that Northwestern University had already imposed a significant sanction by expelling him. Consequently, the court concluded that censure was the most appropriate discipline.
Dissenting - Justice Underwood
Yes. While the majority correctly found that the conduct warrants discipline, the sanction of censure is inadequate. The dissent argues that Lamberis's plagiarism was a deliberate and deceitful act, more akin to fraudulent misrepresentation which typically receives a more severe sanction than mere negligence. Such calculated dishonesty brings the legal profession into disrepute and undermines public confidence in the integrity of attorneys. To maintain consistency with sanctions for similar misconduct and to adequately protect the profession's integrity, a period of suspension is necessary. A three-month suspension would be more appropriate given the calculated nature of the misconduct.
Analysis:
This case is significant for extending the scope of attorney discipline to include academic misconduct that occurs entirely outside the context of legal practice. It establishes the principle that an attorney's fundamental character for honesty and integrity is always relevant to their fitness to practice law. The decision reinforces that conduct involving deceit, even if it does not harm a client or occur in a legal setting, can still undermine the integrity of the legal profession and warrant disciplinary action. This precedent allows disciplinary bodies to consider a wide range of an attorney's personal and professional conduct when evaluating their fitness to remain an officer of the court.
