In re Ring
565 N.E.2d 983, 152 Ill. Dec. 301, 141 Ill. 2d 128 (1990)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
An attorney's unilateral decision to abandon a client's criminal appeal, based on the attorney's personal assessment of its merits, without fully informing the client of the decision and its consequences, constitutes professional neglect and misconduct because the constitutional right to an appeal belongs to the client.
Facts:
- John Boyce was convicted of crimes related to hazardous waste and was sentenced to three years in prison.
- Boyce hired his trial attorney, Gordon Charles Ring, to represent him on appeal.
- After filing a notice of appeal, Ring failed to inform Boyce directly that his motion for bond pending appeal was denied by the appellate court, and Boyce was incarcerated.
- In response to an inquiry from Boyce, Ring wrote in a December 1986 letter that he would have a draft of the appellate brief ready by mid-December, but Ring never drafted the brief.
- Ring determined in early 1987 that there were no viable issues to pursue on appeal, but he did not inform Boyce of this conclusion or that the appeal was in danger of being dismissed.
- The appellate court dismissed Boyce's appeal on April 2, 1987, due to Ring's failure to file a brief.
- On April 21, 1987, Ring met with Boyce but did not inform him that his appeal had already been dismissed.
- Boyce discovered his appeal had been dismissed only after asking a friend to call the appellate court in June 1987.
Procedural Posture:
- The Administrator of the Attorney Registration and Disciplinary Commission (ARDC) filed a three-count complaint against Gordon Charles Ring.
- The ARDC Hearing Board found Ring was negligent only in his communications with his client and recommended censure.
- The Administrator appealed to the ARDC Review Board.
- The Review Board found that all allegations in the complaint were proven and recommended Ring be suspended from the practice of law for one year.
- Ring filed exceptions to the Review Board's findings and recommendation in the Supreme Court of Illinois.
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 failure to prosecute a client's criminal appeal and to inform the client of its impending dismissal, based on the attorney's unilateral determination that the appeal lacks merit, constitute professional misconduct warranting discipline?
Opinions:
Majority - Justice Ryan
Yes. An attorney's failure to prosecute a criminal appeal and inform the client of its impending dismissal constitutes neglect of a legal matter and is professional misconduct. Boyce had a constitutional right to an appeal, and the ultimate decision of whether to exercise that right belonged to him, not Ring. By failing to inform Boyce that no brief had been filed and that the appeal would be dismissed, Ring foreclosed Boyce's ability to make an informed choice, such as seeking other counsel or voluntarily dismissing the appeal. The attorney's subjective belief that an appeal is meritless is irrelevant to the duty to consult with the client before allowing the appeal to be dismissed. The proper course for an attorney who believes an appeal is frivolous is to advise the client and, if the client insists on proceeding, seek to withdraw from representation. The loss of a constitutional right to a criminal appeal is a serious harm, and discipline is necessary to deter such neglect.
Analysis:
This case establishes a critical boundary on an attorney's professional discretion in criminal appeals, emphasizing the principle of client-centered decision-making. The court clarifies that a lawyer's assessment of an appeal's futility does not grant them the authority to unilaterally abandon it. This holding reinforces the attorney's affirmative duties to communicate critical information and to preserve the client's ultimate authority over their case. The decision serves as a clear warning that neglect in criminal cases, particularly when it results in the forfeiture of a constitutional right, will be met with significant discipline, regardless of the perceived merits of the underlying appeal.
