Case ID: so2d_483/html/1008-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "CALOGERO, J., DIXON, C.J.,", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

In Re LSBA COMMITTEE FILE NO. 6784.
    No. 86-OB-0079.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    March 7, 1986.
   CALOGERO, J.,

additionally concurs. The Committee’s reprimand is supported by the disciplinary rule and the facts. We cannot condone this attorney’s conduct by examining his motives. To do so is to invite attorneys to violate this ethical rule.

DIXON, C.J.,

respectfully dissents from the refusal of the court to grant relief in this appeal by a lawyer from a private reprimand. It is my view that it was more important, in every respect, to record the evidence against crooked witnesses than to stop the phone conversation until he could obtain the consent of the party’s lawyer.

Sports rules are interpreted literally. Rules of law and ethical conduct are not. A highly developed sense of discrimination is required. Literal interpretation of the Canons of Ethics can lead to the same irrational conclusions as literal interpretation of scripture.

The lawyer violated a rule of ethical conduct. The violation should be excused under the doctrine of necessity, a defense almost universally recognized, even to charges of violation of criminal statutes. Section 3.02, A.L.I. Model Penal Code.