Featured Chrome Extensions:

Casey IRACs are produced by an AI that analyzes the opinion’s content to construct its analysis. While we strive for accuracy, the output may not be flawless. For a complete and precise understanding, please refer to the linked opinions above.

Keywords

plaintiffattorneylawyerhearingtrial
plaintiffattorneylawyerwill

Related Cases

Goldston v. American Motors Corp., 326 N.C. 723, 392 S.E.2d 735
View Case »
Matter of Holtzman, 78 N.Y.2d 184, 577 N.E.2d 30, 573 N.Y.S.2d 39
View Case »
In re Kiley, 459 Mass. 645, 947 N.E.2d 1
View Case »
Flynn v. Edmonds, 236 Ill.App.3d 770, 602 N.E.2d 880, 176 Ill.Dec. 934
View Case »
Spees v. Kentucky Legal Aid, 274 S.W.3d 447
View Case »
Justia Law Link
LexisNexis Link
Westlaw Link
CourtListener Link
Oyez Link

Daniels v. Alander, 268 Conn. 320, 844 A.2d 182

Facts

On January 16, 2001, attorneys Douglas R. Daniels and Dennis Driscoll filed an ex parte application for temporary custody on behalf of Ines Montalvo. During the hearing, Daniels made statements regarding the opinions of Montalvo's New Jersey attorney, which were later found to be false. The trial court conducted a subsequent hearing after receiving a letter from the New Jersey attorney, who claimed that Daniels had misrepresented her views. The trial court ultimately concluded that both attorneys had violated the Rules of Professional Conduct.

On January 16, 2001, [Douglas R. Daniels and the plaintiff], both of whom were practicing law in Daniels' law firm, filed an ex parte application for temporary custody and relief from abuse on behalf of Ines Montalvo.

Issue

Did the Appellate Court properly conclude that an attorney violates rule 3.3(a)(1) and (d) of the Rules of Professional Conduct by not correcting or supplementing statements made to the court by another attorney?

Did the Appellate Court properly conclude that an attorney violates rule 3.3(a)(1) and (d) of the Rules of Professional Conduct by not correcting or supplementing statements made to the court by another attorney?

Rule

Rule 3.3 of the Rules of Professional Conduct states that a lawyer shall not knowingly make a false statement of material fact to a tribunal and must inform the tribunal of all material facts known to the lawyer in ex parte proceedings.

Rule 3.3 of the Rules of Professional Conduct provides in relevant part: 'A lawyer shall not knowingly … (1)[m]ake a false statement of material fact or law to a tribunal…. (d) In an ex parte proceeding, a lawyer shall inform the tribunal of all material facts known to the lawyer which will enable the tribunal to make an informed decision, whether or not the facts are adverse.'

Analysis

The court determined that the plaintiff, as an officer of the court, had a duty to correct the misrepresentation made by Daniels during the ex parte hearing. The plaintiff was aware of the true facts regarding the New Jersey attorney's opinions and failed to disclose this information, which was material to the court's decision-making process. The court emphasized the heightened duty of candor required in ex parte proceedings, especially concerning the welfare of children.

Under the particular circumstances of this case, the plaintiff, as an officer of the court, was duty bound to correct the misstatement.

Conclusion

The Supreme Court affirmed the Appellate Court's decision, concluding that the plaintiff violated the Rules of Professional Conduct by failing to correct the false statements made by Daniels and by not disclosing material facts known to him.

The judgment of the Appellate Court is affirmed.

Who won?

The prevailing party was the Appellate Court, which upheld the trial court's reprimand of the attorneys for their misconduct during the ex parte proceeding.

The Appellate Court dismissed the writ, determining, inter alia, that the plaintiff had violated rule 3.3(a)(1) by failing to correct the false statements made by Daniels in his presence.

You must be