People v. Casey
948 P.2d 1014 (1997)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
A lawyer's duty of candor toward the tribunal under the Rules of Professional Conduct supersedes the duty of client confidentiality, and a lawyer may not knowingly assist a client in a criminal or fraudulent act, such as impersonating another in a legal proceeding.
Facts:
- S.R., a teenager, was cited for trespassing and underage drinking at a party.
- To avoid trouble, S.R. gave police her friend S.J.'s driver's license, causing a criminal summons to be issued in S.J.'s name.
- Because S.J. was unaware of the summons, she failed to appear in court, and a bench warrant was issued for her arrest.
- S.R., continuing to pose as S.J., later appeared in court regarding the matter, was arrested, and was subsequently released, all under the name of S.J.
- S.R. and her mother hired a law firm, and the case was assigned to the respondent, an associate lawyer.
- The respondent, knowing his client was S.R. but that the case was under S.J.'s name, wrote to the city attorney and filed a notice with the court, falsely stating that he was representing S.J.
- The respondent appeared at a pretrial conference where he negotiated a dismissal of the charges, all while his actual client, S.R., waited outside the courtroom.
- The respondent presented the motion to dismiss to the court without ever revealing his client's true identity, and the court dismissed the case against S.J.
Procedural Posture:
- A complaint was filed against the respondent, William M. Casey, in a lawyer disciplinary proceeding.
- The complainant and the respondent entered into an unconditional stipulation of facts.
- A hearing board of the supreme court grievance committee conducted a hearing and recommended a 45-day suspension from the practice of law and that the respondent pass the MPRE.
- A hearing panel of the supreme court grievance committee approved the board's findings and recommendation.
- The respondent filed exceptions with the Supreme Court of Colorado (the state's highest court), seeking a lesser sanction of public censure.
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 a lawyer violate the Rules of Professional Conduct by knowingly continuing a client's misrepresentation of her identity to the court and opposing counsel in order to secure a dismissal of criminal charges filed under an innocent third party's name?
Opinions:
Majority - Per Curiam
Yes. A lawyer violates the Rules of Professional Conduct by knowingly assisting a client's fraud on the court. The respondent’s duty of candor to the tribunal under Colo. RPC 3.3 required him to disclose his client's true identity, and this duty explicitly supersedes the duty of client confidentiality found in Colo. RPC 1.6. The respondent's claimed dilemma between loyalty to his client and his duty to the court was not a real dilemma, as the rules clearly prioritize candor to the tribunal. Furthermore, the defense for a subordinate lawyer acting on a supervisor’s advice under Colo. RPC 5.2(b) is inapplicable because it only applies to a 'reasonable resolution of an arguable question of professional duty,' and actively misleading a court is not an arguable question.
Analysis:
This decision firmly establishes that a lawyer's duty of candor to the court is paramount and not a negotiable or "arguable" ethical question when a client is perpetrating a fraud on the legal system. It clarifies that duties like client confidentiality and loyalty do not provide a shield for participating in deceit. The ruling also narrowly construes the "subordinate lawyer" defense, signaling to junior attorneys that they bear personal responsibility for clear ethical violations and cannot simply defer to a supervisor's questionable judgment.
Unlock the full brief for People v. Casey