Matter of Mullins
1995 WL 271536, 1995 Ind. LEXIS 69, 649 N.E.2d 1024 (1995)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
An attorney violates the Rules of Professional Conduct by using a guardianship proceeding to interject themselves into a family's private legal matter and then disseminating the incapacitated person's confidential medical records to the media to advance the attorney's own ideological agenda.
Facts:
- Sue Ann Lawrance had been in a chronic, persistent vegetative state since June 1987, receiving all nourishment and hydration via a surgically-implanted gastric tube.
- In March 1991, Sue Ann's parents sought legal authority to compel her healthcare provider to withdraw the artificially-administered hydration and nutrition.
- Around the same time, attorney Patti Sue Mullins, a stranger to the Lawrance family, created a corporation called the "Christian Fellowship, with the Disabled, Inc."
- On May 16, 1991, Mullins, on behalf of her new corporation, petitioned a different court to be appointed as Sue Ann's guardian, alleging that Sue Ann was being neglected by her parents and doctors.
- After the court appointed her as temporary limited guardian, Mullins sent portions of Sue Ann's confidential medical records by facsimile transmission to several news media outlets.
- Mullins's stated motive was not financial gain, but rather the pursuit of her personal ideological objectives regarding end-of-life care.
- Mullins resigned as temporary guardian twelve days after her appointment.
Procedural Posture:
- Sue Ann Lawrance's parents petitioned the Hamilton Superior Court (a trial court) for authority to withdraw their daughter's artificially-administered nutrition and hydration.
- The Hamilton Superior Court issued an order on May 2, 1991, granting the parents' petition.
- Respondent Patti Sue Mullins then filed a 'Petition for Appointment of Guardian' over Sue Ann in the Marion Superior Court (a different trial court).
- The Marion Superior Court appointed Mullins as temporary limited guardian on May 17, 1991.
- Mullins, as guardian, then secured a twenty-one day stay of the Hamilton Superior Court's order.
- The Indiana Supreme Court Disciplinary Commission brought charges against Mullins for her actions.
- Mullins and the Commission tendered a conditional agreement for discipline to the Indiana Supreme Court for its approval.
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 violate the Rules of Professional Conduct by becoming a temporary guardian for an incapacitated person with whom she has no prior relationship, and then disseminating the ward's confidential medical records to the media to advance a personal ideological agenda?
Opinions:
Majority - Per Curiam
Yes. An attorney violates multiple Rules of Professional Conduct by using the legal system to pursue personal objectives in a matter to which she is a stranger and by disclosing confidential client information without justification. The court found Mullins violated Rule 1.6 (Confidentiality) by disseminating Sue Ann Lawrance's confidential medical records to the media without consent or legal justification, as this information was protected both as information relating to representation and as non-public records. She violated Rule 4.4 (Respect for Rights of Third Persons) because the release of the records had no substantial purpose other than to embarrass or burden third persons, namely Sue Ann's family. Finally, she violated Rule 3.3(d) (Candor Toward the Tribunal) by failing to fully inform the Marion Superior Court of all relevant aspects of the parallel proceeding already pending in the Hamilton Superior Court during her ex parte request for guardianship.
Analysis:
This case serves as a significant ethical warning to attorneys against using their legal license to interject themselves into high-profile cases to advance personal, political, or ideological causes. The decision clarifies that even without a corrupt motive like financial gain, using a client's confidential information for public advocacy and failing to be fully candid with the court constitutes serious professional misconduct. It strongly reinforces the principle that a lawyer's duty to the client and the legal system must always come before their personal objectives, particularly when the lawyer is a stranger to the underlying dispute.
