Matter of Barratt
663 N.E.2d 536, 1996 Ind. LEXIS 27, 1996 WL 167999 (1996)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
An attorney commits professional misconduct warranting suspension when they fabricate evidence, provide false testimony under oath, and knowingly make false statements to a disciplinary commission concerning a personal business dispute.
Facts:
- In September 1991, J. Scott Barratt contracted with Just The Fax, an Indiana corporation, to purchase a facsimile machine and an extended service contract for $1,698, to be paid in three equal monthly installments.
- Barratt made two payments of $566 but failed to make the third and final payment.
- On October 5, 1993, the president of Just The Fax filed a grievance against Barratt with the Indiana Supreme Court Disciplinary Commission, complaining about his delinquent payment and delays in the small claims proceeding.
- During a January 6, 1994, telephone conversation with an assigned grievance committee member, Barratt stated he had written and mailed a letter (the "Quick Letter") dated December 7, 1991, to Just The Fax offering to compromise by canceling the service contract and paying the balance owed.
- On January 20, 1994, Barratt testified under oath in small claims court that he had written and mailed the "Quick Letter" on December 7, 1991, and that a courtesy copy was sent to Attorney Will Graebe, who Barratt claimed had advised him to settle the matter directly with Just The Fax.
- In truth, the December 7, 1991, "Quick Letter" was a fabricated document, not in existence in 1991, and was never mailed to Just The Fax or Will Graebe.
- In December 1991, Will Graebe was a third-year law student in North Carolina, had no knowledge of Just The Fax, and had neither met nor communicated with Barratt.
Procedural Posture:
- On February 9, 1993, the president of Just The Fax filed a suit against J. Scott Barratt in the Marion County Small Claims Court, Center Township Division, seeking damages for breach of contract.
- On February 26, 1993, the small claims court granted a default judgment against Barratt.
- In May 1993, Barratt, by counsel, successfully sought to set aside the default judgment on grounds of inadequate service, and the case was set for a hearing on the merits.
- On October 5, 1993, the president of Just The Fax filed a grievance against Barratt with the Indiana Supreme Court Disciplinary Commission.
- The Executive Secretary of the Disciplinary Commission forwarded the grievance to the Indianapolis Bar Association Grievance Committee for a preliminary investigation.
- On January 12, 1994, the assigned committee member prepared a written report recommending dismissal of the grievance.
- The small claims case came to trial on January 20, 1994, where Barratt testified under oath, and the court took the case under advisement.
- Barratt was subsequently confronted by affidavits establishing the falsity of his "Quick Letter" and settled the case with Just The Fax for $2,000.
- Pursant to Admission and Discipline Rule 28, Section 14(f), a hearing officer heard the disciplinary case and tendered a report on findings of fact and conclusions of law, but declined to recommend a sanction.
- Barratt petitioned the Indiana Supreme Court for review of the hearing officer's report.
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 fabrication of evidence, false testimony under oath, and knowingly false statements to a disciplinary commission concerning a personal business dispute constitute professional misconduct warranting disciplinary action?
Opinions:
Majority - PER CURIAM.
Yes, an attorney's fabrication of evidence, false testimony under oath, and knowingly false statements to a disciplinary commission concerning a personal business dispute constitutes professional misconduct warranting disciplinary action. The court found that J. Scott Barratt engaged in an intentional course of conduct designed to deceive. He knowingly and deliberately created a false document (the "Quick Letter") and used it to support untruthful responses to the Disciplinary Commission and false testimony under oath before the Small Claims Court. This conduct violated numerous Rules of Professional Conduct, including falsifying evidence (Prof.Cond.R. 3.4(b)), making false statements of material fact to a tribunal (Prof.Cond.R. 3.3(a)(1)), offering evidence known to be false (Prof.Cond.R. 3.3(a)(4)), engaging in conduct with no substantial purpose other than to delay or burden (Prof.Cond.R. 4.4), committing a criminal act (perjury) reflecting adversely on his honesty and fitness as a lawyer (Prof.Cond.R. 8.4(b)), engaging in dishonesty, fraud, deceit, and misrepresentation (Prof.Cond.R. 8.4(c)), conduct prejudicial to the administration of justice (Prof.Cond.R. 8.4(d)), making false statements of material fact in connection with a disciplinary matter (Prof.Cond.R. 8.1(a)), and failing to disclose a fact necessary to correct a misapprehension (Prof.Cond.R. 8.1(b)). The court considered the intentional and elaborate nature of the deceit and Barratt's failure to acknowledge his misdeeds until exposed by others. While acknowledging mitigating factors such as Barratt's 20+ years of practice without prior discipline and his bar association involvement, the court concluded that a one-year suspension was appropriate given the severity of the misconduct, consistent with sanctions in similar cases involving deceit and illegality.
Analysis:
This case establishes a significant precedent reinforcing the high ethical standards required of attorneys, even in personal disputes. It clearly demonstrates that the fabrication of evidence, perjury, and knowingly making false statements to a tribunal or disciplinary body are grave acts of professional misconduct that will result in severe sanctions, regardless of the attorney's prior good standing or the underlying claim's materiality. The ruling underscores the judiciary's commitment to maintaining the integrity of the legal profession and the administration of justice, sending a strong message that deceit by legal professionals is unacceptable and will not be tolerated.
