In re Ryder
263 F. Supp. 360 (1967)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
An attorney's duty of zealous advocacy does not permit them to take possession of the fruits or instrumentalities of a crime. Such an act is not protected by the attorney-client privilege and constitutes a violation of professional ethics as it involves concealing evidence and acting outside the bounds of the law.
Facts:
- A man armed with a sawed-off shotgun robbed the Varina Branch of the Bank of Virginia of $7,583, which included recorded 'bait money'.
- Two days later, Charles Richard Cook rented a safety deposit box and was subsequently questioned by the FBI.
- Cook retained attorney Richard R. Ryder, who soon came to suspect Cook's involvement after the FBI confirmed some of the money in Cook's possession was identified as bait money.
- Cook admitted to Ryder that he had put a package in a safety deposit box for another person, a story Ryder did not believe.
- Fearing the FBI would find the evidence, Ryder obtained a power of attorney from Cook authorizing him to access the box and dispose of its contents as he saw fit.
- Ryder went to the bank, opened Cook's safety deposit box, and found a bag of money and a sawed-off shotgun.
- Ryder then transferred the money and shotgun from Cook's box into a new safety deposit box he rented in his own name.
- Ryder's intent was to conceal the evidence from the government unless it was discovered, at which point he planned to claim attorney-client privilege to prevent its use against Cook.
Procedural Posture:
- The three judges of the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia removed Richard R. Ryder as attorney for his client, Charles Richard Cook.
- In the same order, the judges suspended Ryder from practice before the court until further order.
- The court referred the matter to the United States Attorney, who was requested to file charges of professional misconduct against Ryder.
- The United States Attorney formally charged Ryder with violating Canons 15 and 32 of the Canons of Professional Ethics.
- A disciplinary hearing was scheduled and held before the court sitting en banc.
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 conduct of taking possession of stolen money and a weapon used in a crime from his client's safety deposit box and placing them into his own, with the intent to conceal them from the government pending trial, violate the Canons of Professional Ethics and fall outside the scope of the attorney-client privilege?
Opinions:
Majority - Per Curiam
Yes, the attorney's conduct violates the Canons of Professional Ethics because it falls outside the protection of the attorney-client privilege. The privilege protects confidential communications made for the purpose of seeking legal advice, not the act of taking possession of physical contraband to conceal it from law enforcement. Ryder's actions went far beyond receiving a confidential communication; he took active steps to hide the fruits (stolen money) and instrumentalities (sawed-off shotgun) of a crime. This conduct amounted to concealing stolen property and an illegal weapon, which is a violation of law and is not sanctioned by any ethical duty to a client. The court found that Ryder violated Canons 15 and 32, which require a lawyer to act within the bounds of the law and prohibit rendering services that involve disloyalty to the law or deception. The court rejected the argument that Ryder was merely protecting his client, stating that a lawyer's belief in what is best for a client cannot justify violating the law or engaging in 'deceptive, legalistic subterfuge'.
Analysis:
This case establishes a critical boundary for criminal defense attorneys regarding their handling of physical evidence. It clarifies that the attorney-client privilege does not create a shield for lawyers to actively conceal evidence that constitutes the fruits or instrumentalities of a crime. The decision reinforces the principle that a lawyer's role as an 'officer of the court' imposes duties to the legal system that can supersede the duty of zealous advocacy to a client. By drawing a sharp line between protected client communications and unprotected physical concealment, the ruling serves as a foundational ethical lesson, warning attorneys that they cannot become participants in their clients' crimes, such as the continuing offense of concealing stolen property.
