Lexplug logoLexplug

In Re the Discipline of Wilka

South Dakota Supreme Court
638 N.W.2d 245, 2001 SD 148 (2001)
ELI5:

Rule of Law:

An attorney violates the duty of candor toward the tribunal by knowingly offering incomplete evidence and providing intentionally evasive and misleading answers to a court's direct inquiries about that evidence.


Facts:

  • Attorney Timothy J. Wilka represented Travis Van Overbeke (Client) in a divorce and custody proceeding.
  • The Client's wife, Carla Van Overbeke (Mother), alleged that the Client used methamphetamines and sought to restrict his child visitation rights.
  • Wilka advised his Client to undergo a urinalysis to refute the allegation.
  • The drug screen results were negative for methamphetamines but positive for cannabinoids (marijuana).
  • Wilka requested that the lab technician provide a report showing only the methamphetamine results.
  • The lab technician complied by cutting off the bottom portion of the report that indicated the positive cannabinoid result, and gave this partial report to Wilka.
  • Wilka sent a copy of the incomplete report to opposing counsel.
  • Wilka later introduced the partial, altered drug report into evidence during a court hearing.

Procedural Posture:

  • During a visitation hearing in the Second Circuit Court, Judge Severson repeatedly questioned Wilka about the completeness of a drug report (Exhibit A) that Wilka had offered into evidence.
  • Judge Severson reported Wilka’s conduct to the Disciplinary Board of the State Bar.
  • The State's Attorney initiated criminal charges against Wilka, which were subsequently pleaded down to a civil contempt charge, resulting in a $100 fine.
  • The Disciplinary Board held a hearing, found that Wilka had violated multiple Rules of Professional Conduct, and recommended a public censure.
  • A court-appointed Referee then reviewed the matter, concluded Wilka violated several rules but not as many as the Board found, and recommended a private censure.
  • The final determination of the appropriate discipline was brought before the Supreme Court of South Dakota.

Locked

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 knowingly submitting an incomplete document into evidence and providing intentionally evasive and misleading answers to a judge's direct questions about that document violate the Rules of Professional Conduct and warrant a public censure?


Opinions:

Majority - Gilbertson, Chief Justice

Yes. An attorney's conduct of knowingly submitting an incomplete document into evidence and providing intentionally evasive answers to a judge's questions warrants a public censure. The duty of candor toward a tribunal requires more than refraining from outright lies; it demands that attorneys be fully honest and forthright. Wilka intentionally evaded Judge Severson's plain and understandable questions about the completeness of the drug report, thereby misleading the court and misrepresenting the evidence. While attorneys have a duty of zealous advocacy, that duty does not permit them to cross the line into deceitful conduct. The court rejected the argument that prior criminal and contempt proceedings were sufficient punishment, clarifying that the purpose of disciplinary proceedings is not to punish the attorney but to protect the public and the integrity of the legal system.



Analysis:

This case strongly affirms that an attorney's duty of candor to the court is paramount and extends beyond merely avoiding false statements. The decision clarifies that misleading the court through omission, evasion, or the use of incomplete evidence constitutes a serious ethical violation. It establishes that such conduct is not excused by the duty of zealous representation or client confidentiality. This precedent serves as a clear warning to practitioners that any form of intentional deceit before a tribunal will be met with significant professional discipline, reinforcing the court's reliance on the absolute integrity of its officers.

🤖 Gunnerbot:
Query In Re the Discipline of Wilka (2001) directly. You can ask questions about any aspect of the case. If it's in the case, Gunnerbot will know.
Locked
Subscribe to Lexplug to chat with the Gunnerbot about this case.

Unlock the full brief for In Re the Discipline of Wilka