In Re Riehlmann
2005 WL 106470, 891 So.2d 1239 (2005)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
Under the Rules of Professional Conduct, an attorney has an affirmative duty to promptly report another lawyer's misconduct when possessing evidence that would lead a reasonable lawyer to form a firm belief that the misconduct more likely than not occurred.
Facts:
- In April 1994, attorney Gerry Deegan met his close friend, attorney Michael G. Riehlmann, at a bar.
- During their conversation, Deegan revealed that he was dying of colon cancer.
- Deegan then confided to Riehlmann that while working as a prosecutor, he had intentionally suppressed exculpatory blood evidence in a criminal case against a defendant named John Thompson.
- The suppressed evidence showed the perpetrator had Type 'B' blood, while Thompson had Type 'O' blood.
- Riehlmann was shocked by the revelation and urged Deegan to 'remedy' the situation but did not report the misconduct to anyone at the time.
- Deegan died in July 1994 without taking any action.
- In April 1999, nearly five years later, Thompson's new lawyers discovered the exculpatory crime lab report just before Thompson's scheduled execution.
- Upon learning of this discovery, Riehlmann executed an affidavit detailing Deegan's 1994 confession and reported the misconduct to disciplinary authorities in May 1999.
Procedural Posture:
- The Office of Disciplinary Counsel (ODC) filed formal charges against Michael G. Riehlmann in a disciplinary proceeding.
- A hearing committee concluded Riehlmann did not violate Rule 8.3(a) (duty to report) but did violate Rule 8.4(d) (conduct prejudicial to the administration of justice) and recommended a public reprimand.
- Both the ODC and Riehlmann objected to the hearing committee's recommendation.
- The Disciplinary Board rejected the committee's findings, concluding Riehlmann violated both rules by failing to timely report Deegan's misconduct, and recommended a six-month suspension from the practice of law.
- Both the ODC and Riehlmann filed objections to the disciplinary board's recommendation, bringing the case before the Supreme Court of Louisiana for review.
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 five-year delay in reporting another lawyer's confession to suppressing exculpatory evidence violate the duty to report professional misconduct under Rule 8.3(a)?
Opinions:
Majority - Per Curiam
Yes, the five-year delay violates the duty to report professional misconduct. Rule 8.3(a) imposes a mandatory duty on a lawyer to report misconduct when the supporting evidence would cause a reasonable lawyer to form a firm belief that the misconduct more likely than not occurred. Absolute certainty is not required. Riehlmann's immediate reaction of shock and his urging Deegan to 'remedy' the situation demonstrated that he possessed the requisite knowledge of the violation in 1994. The duty to report also requires promptness to safeguard the public and the profession, and a five-year delay is not prompt. Finally, the report must be made to the appropriate disciplinary authority, such as the Office of Disciplinary Counsel (ODC), not indirectly through other parties.
Dissenting - Victory, J.
No, the majority's sanction is insufficient. The dissent would impose a harsher sanction on Riehlmann for his misconduct.
Analysis:
This case is significant for establishing a clear, objective standard for the 'knowledge' requirement in the duty to report professional misconduct, moving away from subjective certainty. It clarifies that a 'reasonable lawyer' standard applies, meaning a lawyer cannot avoid the duty by claiming they were not absolutely sure a violation occurred. The decision also formally incorporates a 'promptness' requirement into the reporting duty, making it clear that unreasonable delay constitutes a violation. This precedent strengthens the self-regulating nature of the legal profession by putting attorneys on notice that they must act swiftly on credible information about serious misconduct by their peers.
Unlock the full brief for In Re Riehlmann