Yes, the lawyer broke the rules. A lawyer's primary duties are to do what the client hired them to do and to keep the client informed. The lawyer was hired for a bankruptcy, not a tax issue. Just because the client appointed a friend as a contact person doesn't mean the friend could change the entire goal of the case. The lawyer should have confirmed the change with his actual client, Adams. By failing to do so and by not telling Adams that his money was used for something else and his bankruptcy was dropped, the lawyer violated his professional duties. It doesn't matter if the lawyer didn't have bad intentions; he still failed to follow the rules.

Yes, Machado did break the rules because he didn't stick to the plan of helping Adams with bankruptcy and didn't tell Adams when the plan changed. He also didn't keep Adams updated about what was happening with his case. The people who reviewed everything were convinced Machado was in the wrong, and the judges agreed that the decision to tell him off was fair and made sense. The committee was allowed to decide if they believed Machado's story or not. Machado was also in trouble for listening to Cihocki when he shouldn't have, because he was supposed to make sure Cihocki was really allowed to make decisions for Adams.

"[T] he committee, as the fact finder, was free to weigh the plaintiff's evidence and to determine the credibility of [the plaintiff's] testimony."

—lawyer reprimanded for mistakenly following the direction of an agent for an incarcerated client outside the scope of agent's authority

Second, the party dealing with the agent must have, acting in good faith, reasonably believed, under all the circumstances, that the agent had the necessary authority to bind the principal to the agent's action....

—an incarcerated client instructed his lawyer to communicate through a business partner to obtain a bankruptcy.

—the client described a conversation with the lawyer' s agent, a secretary, outlining how the client wanted to proceed.

—lawyer violated Rules 1.2 (a) and 1.4 (a) by following client's agent's unauthorized request to redirect lawyer's efforts to tax lien instead of bankruptcy

—the client designated an agent to communicate with the lawyer, even signing a power of attorney to facilitate the client' s bankruptcy.

Yes, the attorney violated the Rules of Professional Conduct. An attorney must abide by a client's decisions concerning the objectives of representation and keep the client reasonably informed about the status of their matter. The court reasoned that the grievance committee's findings were supported by clear and convincing evidence. The committee correctly determined that Cihocki's agency was limited to facilitating communication for the bankruptcy and did not extend to authorizing a fundamental change in the objective of the representation. Machado violated Rule 1.2(a) by failing to abide by Adams' decision to file for bankruptcy and failing to consult him about the change. He violated Rule 1.4(a) by not informing Adams that the scope of representation had changed and that the retainer had been depleted. The court rejected Machado's argument that he was discharged, noting the violations occurred before the file was retrieved. Finally, the court affirmed that scienter (bad faith or corrupt motive) is not a required element for finding these types of ethical violations.

Yes, Machado violated rules 1.2(a) and 1.4(a) of the Rules of Professional Conduct because he failed to abide by Adams' decision to file for bankruptcy and failed to consult with Adams regarding the change in the scope of representation from bankruptcy to release of a sales tax lien. Additionally, Machado did not keep Adams reasonably informed about the status of the bankruptcy. The evidence presented was clear and convincing, and the conclusions drawn by the reviewing committee and affirmed by the defendant and the court were legally and logically correct. The committee, as the fact finder, was free to weigh the plaintiff's evidence and determine the credibility of the plaintiff's testimony. Machado was reprimanded for mistakenly following the direction of an agent for an incarcerated client outside the scope of the agent's authority, and it was necessary for Machado to have reasonably believed, in good faith, that the agent had the necessary authority to bind the principal to the agent's action.

Machado v. Statewide Grievance Committee

Case Podcast

Rule of Law:

The Legal Principle

Facts:

Procedural Posture:

How It Got Here

Issue:

Legal Question at Stake

Opinions:

Majority, Concurrences & Dissents

Analysis:

Why This Case Matters

Gunnerbot