In re Pressly
160 Vt. 319, 628 A.2d 927 (1993)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
An attorney violates the professional duty of confidentiality by knowingly revealing a client's secret, even without a dishonest motive, and such a violation warrants a public reprimand if it causes the client injury, including emotional distress. A misunderstanding of one's professional duty under pressure from opposing counsel is not a defense to such a violation.
Facts:
- Thomas Pressly represented a client in a divorce and relief-from-abuse proceeding against her husband.
- The client informed Pressly of her husband's history of alcoholism and abuse.
- The client later told Pressly she suspected, based on a counselor's input, that her husband had sexually abused their daughter.
- The client specifically instructed Pressly not to discuss her suspicions with her husband's lawyer.
- When questioned by opposing counsel about the continued requests for supervised visitation, Pressly revealed the client's suspicions of sexual abuse.
- Opposing counsel immediately relayed this information to the husband.
- Upon learning of the disclosure, the client perceived her husband became more uncooperative and she experienced heightened fear, anxiety, and emotional distress.
- The client subsequently terminated Pressly's representation.
Procedural Posture:
- The complainant filed a disciplinary complaint against her attorney, Thomas Pressly, with a professional conduct panel.
- The hearing panel found that Pressly had violated a disciplinary rule and its report was adopted by the Professional Conduct Board.
- The Professional Conduct Board recommended that Pressly receive a public reprimand as a sanction.
- Pressly, the respondent, appealed the Board's decision and recommended sanction to the Supreme Court of Vermont.
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 violate Disciplinary Rule 4-101(B)(1) by knowingly revealing a client's confidential suspicions to opposing counsel, despite being explicitly instructed not to, even if the attorney did not intend to harm the client and believed the disclosure was necessary?
Opinions:
Majority - Per Curiam
Yes. An attorney violates DR 4-101(B)(1) by knowingly revealing a client's confidence to opposing counsel against the client's instructions, even if the attorney lacked a harmful motive. The court reasoned that Pressly admitted he knew the information was confidential and understood he should not have revealed it, which satisfied the 'knowingly' element of the rule. Even if his actions were viewed as negligent because he did not appreciate the full consequences and acted in what he thought was good faith, a public reprimand is still the appropriate sanction under the ABA Standards for Imposing Lawyer Sanctions. The court found that the client's resulting emotional distress, fear, and anxiety constituted a sufficient 'injury' to warrant more than a private admonition. The court emphasized that the duty of confidentiality is a 'core component of the attorney-client relationship,' and a private admonition would 'unduly depreciate the violation.'
Analysis:
This case reinforces the stringent nature of an attorney's duty of confidentiality, clarifying that an attorney's subjective good faith or lack of malicious intent does not excuse a knowing disclosure of a client's secrets. The decision establishes that emotional distress constitutes a cognizable 'injury' for the purpose of determining the severity of attorney sanctions, expanding the concept of client harm beyond tangible legal or financial setbacks. The ruling serves as a stark warning to attorneys that a misjudgment regarding their duty of confidentiality, especially when pressured by opposing counsel, can result in public discipline. It underscores that an attorney's primary duty is to protect the client's confidences, even over strategic impulses.
