Case Title: Dike v. Dike

Citation: 448 P.2d 490, 75 Wash. 2d 1

Docket Number: 

State: washington

Court: Washington Supreme Court

Date: 1968-12-05T00:00:00Z

Document:
75 Wn.2d 1 (1968) 448 P.2d 490 CHARLES A. DIKE, JR., Plaintiff, v. ROBBIN ANGELA DIKE, Defendant, JOHN R. SIMMONS, Appellant, THE STATE OF WASHINGTON, Respondent.[*] No. 40081. The Supreme Court of Washington, Department Two. December 5, 1968. Phil McIntosh and McIntosh & Simmons, for appellant. *3 Charles O. Carroll, Herbert L. Onstad, and Richard C. Nelson (of Cole, Chapin, O'Connell & Nelson), for respondent. NEILL, J. This is an appeal from a conviction of an attorney for contempt committed in the presence of the court. Appellant was the attorney for Robbin Angela Dike, defendant in a divorce action. On November 17, 1967, the court entered an order in the divorce action placing temporary custody of the parties' minor child with a Mr. and Mrs. McCutchin, subject to visitation rights by both parents and to the defendant mother's right of temporary custody on weekends. Appellant, as attorney for defendant, had full knowledge of the provisions of the order. On November 29, 1967, Mrs. Dike removed the minor child from the McCutchin home and failed to return her. A motion to find defendant in contempt for violation of the custody order was served on appellant on December 8, 1967. Neither defendant nor appellant appeared at the December 15th hearing on the motion for contempt. The court thereupon directed plaintiff's counsel to prepare an order addressed to appellant requiring him to appear before the court at 11:30 a.m. on December 18, 1967, and to produce defendant or to show cause why he should not produce her. This order was served on appellant at 9:30 a.m., December 18th. Appellant appeared as directed. He filed a special appearance, motion to quash, and motion and affidavit of prejudice for transfer to a different department of the court. All were summarily denied. He refused to answer any questions relative to his client's whereabouts. He contended that the questions were improper because his information was confidential and that disclosing this information would be in violation of the canons of professional ethics. The court thereupon had a uniformed deputy sheriff come to the courtroom, remove appellant, handcuffed, to the county jail where he was booked, fingerprinted and "mugged". Subsequently, appellant was released on $5,000 *4 cash bail. It was not until January 8, 1968, that, pursuant to a motion by appellant, an order in compliance was RCW 7.20.030[1] was entered. An order was entered January 12, 1968, purging appellant of the contempt and exonerating his bond. This order recites that defendant had appeared at the trial of the divorce action on January 2nd.[2] [1] Appellant contends that the court erred in denying his motion to transfer the action to a different department in the superior court and in overruling his special appearance and motion to quash the show cause order on the basis of lack of jurisdiction. Appellant's contention that the matter should have been transferred to another department is without merit. The trial court had properly assumed continuing jurisdiction over the minor child and had awarded temporary custody to someone other than the parents, pending a final determination of the divorce action. The primary purpose of the hearing at which appellant was ordered to appear was to investigate into the alleged violation of the court's temporary custody order and to determine the whereabouts of the child. The judge who acted in the temporary order was familiar with the facts of the case including the mother's wrongful actions. He, therefore, was the proper judge to consider appellant's refusal to disclose the whereabouts of the mother and child. [2] As to appellant's contention that the court lacked jurisdiction or power to compel appellant to appear personally at the hearing we do not agree. It has been stated that It has also been said that courts have inherent power To hold that a trial judge has no jurisdiction to compel an attorney, representing one of the parties in an action pending before that judge, to appear at a hearing being held to determine whether the attorney's client is deliberately violating a valid order of that court would render trial courts powerless to enforce their judgments and mandates and to insure the orderly administration of justice. Appellant assigns error to several of the findings made by the court, but our reading of the record convinces us that the findings are supported by the evidence with one exception. The court found that "Robbin Angela Dike intermittently observed and disregarded said order until November 29, 1967 when Mrs. Dike, with the knowledge of John Simmons, her Attorney, forcibly removed the minor from the McCutchins' custody...." We see no support for the finding that the actions of Mrs. Dike were performed with the knowledge of her attorney. However, even striking such finding will not alter the basic issue since the wrongful act of Mrs. Dike was continuing and it is obvious that appellant became aware of her misdeed during its continuance. [3] In discussing the primary issue raised in this appeal, it is important to recognize that an attorney has a dual role he is both an advocate for his client and an officer of the court. The various duties and obligations of *6 appellant emanate from these two roles. Neither duty can be meaningfully considered independent from the other. Of this dual role of the attorney, it has been said (Henry S. Drinker, Legal Ethics p. 75, (1953), quoting from People v. Beattie, 137 Ill. 553, 574 (1891)): See also, 7 Am.Jur.2d Attorneys at Law § 5 (1963); and 20 Am.Jur.2d Courts § 4 (1965). When the court learned that appellant's client had violated its custody order, it had the power as well as the obligation to investigate into the matter, to seek the whereabouts of the child, to order the mother to appear before the court and produce the child. Appellant, as an officer of the court, had the duty to avoid hindering the court's efforts to protect the child's welfare, if not the duty to affirmatively assist the court. Appellant's refusal to disclose the whereabouts of his client clearly hindered the court's efforts in this regard and would constitute contempt of court unless his duty to preserve inviolate the confidences of his client encompassed his knowledge of the client's address and unless this latter duty overrides appellant's duty to the court. Before turning to a discussion of the applicability of the attorney-client privilege, we should touch upon one other preliminary issue. The canons of professional ethics (CPE 1) provide in part that *7 The attorney's duty flowing from CPE 1 has been explained as follows (Drinker, supra, at 69): On the basis of this principle, respondent contends that appellant's refusal to disclose the whereabouts of his client constituted contempt irrespective of whether or not the court erred in ruling that the information sought was not privileged. [4] In Robertson v. Commonwealth, 181 Va. 520, 536, 25 S.E.2d 352, 146 A.L.R. 966 (1943), an attorney was ordered by the trial court to produce certain evidence. The attorney refused on the ground that the evidence was within the attorney-client privilege protecting confidential communications. The trial court held the attorney in contempt and the attorney appealed. The Virginia court stated: Appellant seeks to come within this second exception. We have quoted extensively from Robertson, supra, because it succinctly sets forth the principles here involved. The court in Robertson went on to hold that the trial court correctly ruled that the information sought was not a privileged communication and therefore affirmed the judgment of contempt.[3] In State ex rel. Sowers v. Olwell, 64 Wn.2d 828, 833, 394 P.2d 681 (1964), we followed the general principles set forth in Robertson, stating: Therefore, if we hold that the whereabouts of appellant's client was protected by the attorney-client privilege, then appellant's refusal to disclose the information to the court did not constitute contempt and we must reverse the trial court's judgment. RCW 5.60.060(2), which we held to be merely declaratory of the common law in State v. Emmanuel, 42 Wn.2d 799, 259 P.2d 845 (1953), provides: The attorney-client privilege is somewhat more comprehensively defined in CPE 37, which provides in part: [5] The purpose and justification for the attorney-client privilege has been explained as follows (Drinker, supra, p. 133): Also see Formal Opinion 91 (1933), American Bar Association, Opinions on Professional Ethics 339 (1967). The attorney-client privilege, as defined in Canon 37, is not absolute; but rather is subject to recognized exceptions. Drinker, supra, p. 133. The exceptions which have arisen are the result of a balancing process in which the courts have had to weigh the benefits of the privilege against the public interest in the criminal investigation process as discussed in Sowers, supra. As the privilege may result in the exclusion of evidence which is otherwise relevant and material, contrary to the philosophy that justice can be achieved only with the fullest disclosure of the facts, the privilege cannot be treated as absolute; but rather, must be strictly limited to the purpose for which it exists. With these general guidelines in mind, we turn to the specific issue which we must decide namely, whether the whereabouts of appellant's client was privileged information. Although we have not had occasion to consider this question before, it appears[4] that the general rule is as stated in Ex parte Schneider, 294 S.W. 736, 738 (Mo. App. 1927): As exceptions to this general rule, it has been held that the attorney of the plaintiff in an action may be compelled to disclose the address of his client where the purpose of the disclosure is: (1) making service of a court order, Markevich v. Royal Ins. Co., 162 App. Div. 640, 147 N.Y.S. 1004 (1914); (2) obtaining security for costs, see In re Annexation of Certain Territory to Village of Harvester, 37 Ill. App.2d 255, 185 N.E.2d 369 (1962); (3) fixing venue, see Schneider, supra; Markevich, supra; (4) determining the court's jurisdiction, In re Illidge, 162 Ore. 393, 91 P.2d 1100 (1939); Schneider, supra; Markevich, supra; (5) determining the existence of the plaintiff, Illidge, supra; Schneider, supra; (6) examining plaintiff before trial, Schneider, supra; Corbett v. Gibson, 18 Hun 49 (New York 1879); and (7) determining the nature and amount of the claim, In re Philadelphia & Reading Coal & Iron Co., 27 F. Supp. 256 (D.C.Pa. 1939). Further, it has been held that a defendant in an action is entitled to an order requiring plaintiff's attorney to disclose plaintiff's address before defendant can be compelled to try the action (Bohling v. Bronson, 130 App. Div. 895, 115 N.Y.S. 29 (1909)), provided the information is not desired for some improper ulterior purpose (Drake v. New York Iron Mine, 75 Hun 539, 27 N.Y.S. 489 (1894)). It has also been held that the attorney for the defendant may be required to disclose the defendant's address where the purpose of the disclosure was: (1) to secure service on defendant of an order of court requiring him to pay counsel fees and alimony pendente lite, Richards v. Richards, 64 Misc. 285, 119 N.Y.S. 81 (1909); or (2) to obtain service on an injunction in aid of the administration of justice. See Schneider, supra. [6] As observed by the court in Schneider, supra, however, these exceptions which require counsel to disclose the address of his client are applied only in instances where Conversely, an attorney will not be required to disclose the address of his client (1) when the client is not a party to the action in which the information is sought, Schneider, supra; Neugass v. Terminal Cab Corp., 139 Misc. 699, 249 N.Y.S. 631 (1931); (2) when the client is not seeking the use of the courts, Neugass, supra; (3) when the action in which the client was involved has gone to judgment and the attorney-client relationship has ceased, In re Trainor, 146 App. Div. 117, 130 N.Y.S. 682 (1911); Levy v. Coy, Hunt & Co., 64 Misc. 39, 117 N.Y.S. 949 (1909); (4) when the action involving the client has gone to judgment and the purpose in seeking the address is to enable the client to be pursued in subsequent actions, Hyman v. Corgil Realty Co., 164 App. Div. 140, 149 N.Y.S. 493 (1914); Levy, supra; or (5) when the attorney is not representing any of the parties in an action and the purpose in seeking the address is to enable the plaintiff in the action to serve process on the attorney's client, Brooklyn Sav. Bank v. Park Slope Realty Corp., 146 Misc. 4, 260 N.Y.S. 508 (1932). See Sunga v. Lee, 13 Ill. App.2d 76, 141 N.E.2d 63 (1957). All of the factors which have been held to be necessary prerequisites to compelling an attorney to disclose the address of his client are present in the case at bar: appellant has appeared in the action in which the address is sought; appellant's client is a party to that action and has sought the use of the courts; the action was still pending and had not gone to judgment; the attorney-client relationship still existed; the address was not sought for the purpose of pursuing the client in subsequent actions; and the information is necessary not only to protect the rights of a party adverse to the client, but also the interests of an innocent third party the minor child. Therefore, in the instant case the address of appellant's client was not privileged information. Accord, Jafarian-Kerman v. Jafarian-Kerman, 424 *14 S.W.2d 333 (Mo. 1967); Falkenhainer v. Falkenhainer, 198 Misc. 29, 97 N.Y.S.2d 467 (1950); Burton v. Darnley, 21 L.T.R. (n.s.) 292 (1869); Ramsbotham v. Senior, 21 L.T.R. (n.s.) 293 (1869); Schneider, supra; Formal Opinion 155 (1936), American Bar Association, Opinions on Professional Ethics 426 (1967); Opinion 70 (1960), Washington State Bar Association, Opinions of the Legal Ethics Committee 67 (1966). [7] The court is faced with the task of balancing society's interest in the free and open flow of communication between attorney and client, which the privilege promotes, against society's interest in the administration of justice by our courts on the basis of a full disclosure of the facts and with the affirmative assistance of attorneys, which the privilege discourages. On the basis of the reasoning of the authorities above discussed, we hold that under the facts hereof, appellant was not privileged to withhold his client's whereabouts from the court. The necessity for unhindered communication between attorney and client is outweighed, not so much by society's interest in having the truth disclosed as to crimes already completed, but rather by society's interest in protecting the present and future victims of the client. In other words, although we will not discard the privilege when the sole purpose in doing so is merely to punish the client for a wrong committed in the past, nevertheless we will not allow the shield of silence constructed by the privilege to aid the client in continuing his wrongdoing at the expense of other members of society. The information sought by the court did not relate to a completed wrong, nor was the primary purpose of disclosure to punish the client for her misdeeds in the past; rather, the information relates to a continuing wrong which was being aided by the silence of the client's attorney. The primary purpose of disclosure is to protect a minor child's welfare which is, at least potentially, being harmed by the client's continuing wrongful actions. In reaching this conclusion, we recognize that we may be imposing a Draconian rule on attorneys with respect to the *15 attorney-client privilege. Whenever a trial court orders an attorney to disclose information which the attorney conscientiously believes to be within the protection of the privilege, the attorney has two alternatives: (1) to obey the court and disclose the information; or (2) to disobey the court and appeal the resulting contempt citation to a higher court. If the attorney chooses the first alternative when, in fact, the desired information is privileged, there is authority for the proposition that the attorney has acted improperly, if not unethically. As stated in a concurring opinion in People v. Kor, 129 Cal. App. 2d 436, 447, 277 P.2d 94 (1954): On the other hand, if the attorney follows his conscience and chooses the second alternative, and if this court agrees that the desired information was privileged, then the contempt citation is dismissed and the attorney vindicated. But in that second "if" lies the attorney's dilemma, as the contempt citation stands if this court holds with the lower court. Such a procedure might be justified if the application of the attorney-client privilege to any set of facts were clear and definite; but certainly not when, as here, the application of the privilege is rather obscure. [8] However, we do not believe it is necessary to leave appellant in this position. In State v. Caffrey, 70 Wn.2d 120, 422 P.2d 307 (1966), we recognized that punishment for contempt is within the discretion of the court. We follow our usual rule regarding review of discretionary matters and in so doing are impressed with the view stated by the court in Appeal of the United States Sec. & Exch. Comm'n, 226 F.2d 501, 520 (6th Cir.1955): Accordingly, both the oral order and the written order adjudging and committing appellant for contempt of court are vacated and set aside. It is directed that appellant be completely absolved from any punishment for his refusal to answer the court's inquiry. FINLEY, C.J., HUNTER and HAMILTON, JJ., and LANGENBACH, J. Pro Tem., concur. [*] Reported in 448 P.2d 490. [1] "When a contempt is committed in the immediate view and presence of the court or officer, it may be punished summarily, for which an order must be made reciting the facts as occurring in such immediate view and presence, determining that the person proceeded against is thereby guilty of contempt, and that he be punished as therein prescribed." RCW 7.20.030. [2] It is of passing interest that the divorce trial resulted in the defendant's obtaining custody of the child. [3] See Ex parte Enzor, 270 Ala. 254, 117 So. 2d 361 (1960), where attorney's contempt conviction was reversed on basis that the information the attorney refused to give the court was privileged. [4] Annotation 16 A.L.R.3d 1062 (1967).