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

attorneylawyeraffidavitprosecutordefense attorneyexculpatory evidence
attorneylawyerprosecutordefense attorneyexculpatory evidence

Related Cases

Pilli v. Virginia State Bar, 269 Va. 391, 611 S.E.2d 389, 74 USLW 3132
View Case »
Reed v. Superior Court, 92 Cal.App.4th 448, 111 Cal.Rptr.2d 842, 01 Cal. Daily Op. Serv. 8278, 2001 Daily Journal D.A.R. 10,183
View Case »
Hotel Associates, Inc. v. Rieves, Rubens and Mayton, 2014 Ark. 254, 435 S.W.3d 488
View Case »
Leonard C. Arnold, Ltd. v. Northern Trust Co., 116 Ill.2d 157, 506 N.E.2d 1279, 107 Ill.Dec. 224, 55 USLW 2469
View Case »
Felty v. Hartweg, 169 Ill.App.3d 406, 523 N.E.2d 555, 119 Ill.Dec. 799
View Case »
Justia Law Link
LexisNexis Link
Westlaw Link
CourtListener Link
Oyez Link

In re Riehlmann, 891 So.2d 1239, 2004-0680 (La. 1/19/05)

Facts

Michael G. Riehlmann, a criminal defense attorney, learned from his friend Gerry Deegan, a former prosecutor, that Deegan had suppressed exculpatory evidence in a criminal case. Despite being shocked and urging Deegan to remedy the situation, Riehlmann did not report this information at the time. Years later, when the evidence was discovered, Riehlmann executed an affidavit and reported Deegan's misconduct to the Office of Disciplinary Counsel (ODC), but this was five years after the initial conversation.

Michael G. Riehlmann, a criminal defense attorney, learned from his friend Gerry Deegan, a former prosecutor, that Deegan had suppressed exculpatory evidence in a criminal case.

Issue

Did Michael G. Riehlmann violate the reporting requirements of Rule 8.3(a) of the Rules of Professional Conduct by failing to report the misconduct of another attorney in a timely manner?

Did Michael G. Riehlmann violate the reporting requirements of Rule 8.3(a) of the Rules of Professional Conduct by failing to report the misconduct of another attorney in a timely manner?

Rule

A lawyer possessing unprivileged knowledge of a violation of the Rules of Professional Conduct must report such knowledge to a tribunal or other authority empowered to investigate or act upon such violation.

A lawyer possessing unprivileged knowledge of a violation of the Rules of Professional Conduct must report such knowledge to a tribunal or other authority empowered to investigate or act upon such violation.

Analysis

The court determined that Riehlmann had sufficient knowledge of Deegan's misconduct from their conversation in 1994, which would have led a reasonable lawyer to believe that a violation had occurred. Riehlmann's failure to report this information promptly constituted a violation of Rule 8.3(a). The court emphasized that the duty to report is mandatory and not merely aspirational.

The court determined that Riehlmann had sufficient knowledge of Deegan's misconduct from their conversation in 1994, which would have led a reasonable lawyer to believe that a violation had occurred.

Conclusion

The Supreme Court concluded that Riehlmann's actions warranted a public reprimand for his failure to report the misconduct of another attorney in a timely manner.

The Supreme Court concluded that Riehlmann's actions warranted a public reprimand for his failure to report the misconduct of another attorney in a timely manner.

Who won?

The Office of Disciplinary Counsel prevailed as the court upheld the disciplinary board's recommendation for a public reprimand against Riehlmann for his failure to report misconduct.

The Office of Disciplinary Counsel prevailed as the court upheld the disciplinary board's recommendation for a public reprimand against Riehlmann for his failure to report misconduct.

You must be