Matter of Chovanec
1994 Ind. LEXIS 127, 640 N.E.2d 1052, 1994 WL 543640 (1994)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
An attorney violates the Rules of Professional Conduct by knowingly making a false statement of material fact to a court, which constitutes conduct involving dishonesty, misrepresentation, and prejudice to the administration of justice.
Facts:
- James E. Chovanee undertook to defend David E. Searles in a criminal charge in Huntington Superior Court, with a jury trial set for January 30, 1992.
- Around January 23 or 24, 1992, Chovanee informally inquired with the court about a continuance, expressing reluctance to bring an expert witness if the first trial setting proceeded, potentially postponing Searles' trial.
- On January 27, the court informed Chovanee that the first trial setting had been continued, and he should be ready for Searles' trial on January 30.
- On January 30, at approximately 8:15 a.m., Chovanee appeared in Judge Jeffrey R. Heffelfinger’s chambers and told the judge that defendant Searles was too ill to proceed with trial that day and had been ill the day before.
- Later that same day, Judge Heffelfinger directed his staff to call Searles' workplace, learning that Searles was at work.
- Searles, questioned under oath by the judge, testified that Chovanee had told him the trial was continued to accommodate his expert witness and that he did not have to appear, making no mention of being ill.
- Within fifteen minutes of Searles' testimony, Judge Heffelfinger secured Chovanee’s presence in the courtroom, placed him under oath, and Chovanee admitted that Searles had not contacted him about being ill, stating, 'I did not tell you the truth this morning, Judge. I was not prepared for the trial.'
Procedural Posture:
- The Indiana Supreme Court Disciplinary Commission filed a Verified Complaint for Disciplinary Action against James E. Chovanee, alleging he made certain false statements to the Huntington Superior Court.
- James E. Chovanee and the Indiana Supreme Court Disciplinary Commission tendered for the Indiana Supreme Court's approval a Statement of Circumstances and Conditional Agreement for Discipline, along with Chovanee’s affidavit.
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 act of knowingly making a false statement of material fact to a court to secure a trial continuance constitute professional misconduct in violation of the Rules of Professional Conduct?
Opinions:
Majority - PER CURIAM
Yes, an attorney's act of knowingly making a false statement of material fact to a court to secure a trial continuance constitutes professional misconduct. The Court found that James E. Chovanee violated Rule 3.3(a)(1) of the Rules of Professional Conduct by knowingly making a false statement of material fact to Judge Heffelfinger. His intentional false statement also constituted conduct involving dishonesty and misrepresentation under Rule 8.4(e) and was prejudicial to the administration of justice under Rule 8.4(d). The Court emphasized that Chovanee's actions demonstrated a lack of respect for the court’s interests in fostering orderly administration of justice and wasted valuable judicial time and resources. Although Chovanee had no prior disciplinary history, showed genuine remorse, cooperated, made full disclosure, and was experiencing personal problems, these mitigating factors did not excuse his actions. Therefore, a thirty-day suspension from the practice of law was deemed warranted and approved.
Analysis:
This case strongly affirms the judiciary's expectation of absolute candor from attorneys, establishing that intentional misrepresentation to a court, even for a perceived tactical advantage like a continuance, is a severe ethical violation. It underscores that while mitigating factors may influence the sanction, they do not excuse the fundamental breach of an attorney's duty of honesty. This decision serves as a clear precedent that courts will not tolerate deceptive practices that undermine the integrity and efficiency of the legal process, ensuring attorneys maintain the highest standards of truthfulness in their interactions with the judiciary.
