Title: In the Matter of: Anonymous
Citation: N/A
Docket Number: 18S00-0902-DI-73
State: Indiana
Issuer: Indiana Supreme Court
Date: August 27, 2010

ATTORNEY FOR THE RESPONDENT 
Ronald E. Elberger 
Indianapolis, Indiana 
 
 
ATTORNEYS FOR THE INDIANA SUPREME COURT  
DISCIPLINARY COMMISSION 
G. Michael Witte, Executive Secretary 
Alison S. Avery, Staff Attorney 
Indianapolis, Indiana 
 
___________________________________________________________________________ 
 
 
In the 
Indiana Supreme Court  
_________________________________ 
 
No. 18S00-0902-DI-73 
 
IN THE MATTER OF: 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
ANONYMOUS, 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Respondent. 
_________________________________ 
 
Attorney Discipline Action 
Hearing Officer Lynn Murray 
_________________________________ 
 
 
 
August 27, 2010 
 
 
Per Curiam. 
 
This matter is before the Court on the report of the hearing officer appointed by this 
Court to hear evidence on the Indiana Supreme Court Disciplinary Commission's "Verified 
Complaint for Disciplinary Action."  The Respondent's admission to this state's bar subjects her 
to this Court's disciplinary jurisdiction.  See IND. CONST. art. 7, § 4.   
 
We find that Respondent engaged in attorney misconduct by improperly revealing 
information relating to the representation of a former client.  For this misconduct, we find that 
Respondent should receive a private reprimand. 
FILED
CLERK
of the supreme court,
court of appeals and
tax court
Aug 27 2010, 3:56 pm
 
2 
 
Background 
 
Respondent represented an organization that employed "AB."  Respondent became 
acquainted with AB though this connection.  In December 2007, AB and her husband were 
involved in an altercation to which the police were called, during which, AB's husband asserted, 
she threatened to harm him.  In January 2008, AB phoned Respondent and told her about her 
husband's allegation and that she and her husband had separated.  In a second phone call that 
month, AB asked Respondent for a referral to a family law attorney.  Respondent gave AB the 
name of an attorney in Respondent's firm.1  Respondent then called this attorney to inform her of 
the referral and to give her AB's phone number.  The attorney called AB that same day and 
arranged a meeting the following day, when AB retained the attorney.  AB told the attorney 
about the December 2007 incident and directed her to file a divorce petition.  Respondent was 
aware that AB had retained the attorney from her firm and had filed for divorce.  AB and her 
husband soon reconciled, however, and, at AB's request, the divorce petition was dismissed and 
the firm's representation of AB ended.    
 
In March or April  2008, Respondent was socializing with two friends, one of whom was 
also a friend of AB's.  Unaware of AB's reconciliation with her husband, Respondent told her 
two friends about AB's filing for divorce and about her husband's accusation.  Respondent 
encouraged AB's friend to contact AB because the friend expressed concern for her.  When AB's 
friend called AB and told her what Respondent had told him, AB became upset about the 
revelation of the information and filed a grievance against Respondent.  
 
The Commission charged Respondent with violating Professional Conduct Rule 
1.9(c)(2), which prohibits revelation of information relating to the representation of a former 
client except as the Professional Conduct Rules permit or require.  The hearing officer concluded 
that Respondent violated the rule as charged.  The hearing officer found no facts in aggravation 
                                                 
1 Respondent testified that she also gave AB the names of two attorneys not associated with her firm. 
 
 
3 
and the following facts in mitigation:  (1) Respondent has no disciplinary history; and (2) 
Respondent was cooperative with the Commission. 
 
Neither party filed a petition for review of the hearing officer's report.  When neither 
party challenges the findings of the hearing officer, the Court accepts and adopts those findings 
but reserves final judgment as to misconduct and discipline.  See Matter of Levy, 726 N.E.2d 
1257, 1258 (Ind. 2000). 
 
Discussion 
 
Rules addressing revelation of confidential information.  The Rules of Professional 
Conduct ("Rules") contain several interrelated rules protecting the confidentiality of information 
relating to legal representations and consultations.  Respondent is accused of violating 
Professional Conduct Rule 1.9(c), which sets forth the following duties owing to former clients:   
 
A lawyer who has formerly represented a client in a matter or whose present or 
former firm has formerly represented a client in a matter shall not 
thereafter: 
 
(1) use information relating to the representation to the disadvantage of the 
former client except as these Rules would permit or require with respect to a 
client, or when the information has become generally known;  or 
 
(2) reveal information relating to the representation except as these Rules 
would permit or require with respect to a client.  
 
(Emphasis added.) 
 
 
Professional Conduct Rule 1.6(a), which covers duties to current clients, states:  "A 
lawyer shall not reveal information relating to representation of a client unless the client gives 
informed consent, the disclosure is impliedly authorized in order to carry out the representation 
or the disclosure is permitted by paragraph (b)."  Paragraph (b) allows disclosure under 
conditions not applicable to the current case, such as to prevent commission of a crime or to 
comply with a court order.   
 
 
4 
Professional Conduct Rule 1.18, which covers duties to prospective clients, states:   
 
(a) A person who discusses with a lawyer the possibility of forming a client-
lawyer relationship with respect to a matter is a prospective client. 
 
(b) Even when no client-lawyer relationship ensues, a lawyer who has had 
discussions with a prospective client shall not use or reveal information 
learned in the consultation, except as Rule 1.9 would permit with respect to 
information of a former client.   
 
(Emphasis added.) 
 
 
Respondent's revelation of the information at issue was a violation of Rule 1.9(c)(2).  
Respondent argued to the hearing officer that AB initially gave her the information at issue for 
the purpose of seeking personal rather than professional advice and only later phoned her again 
to ask for an attorney referral.  Thus, she argued, the information was not confidential when AB 
first disclosed it to her, subsequent events did not change its nature, and she violated no ethical 
obligation in later revealing it.   
 
The first January 2008 phone conversation did not include discussion of the possibility of 
forming an attorney-client relationship.  If AB's communication with Respondent had ended with 
that phone call, revelation of the information at issue would not have been a violation of 
Respondent's ethical duties.  "A person who communicates information unilaterally to a lawyer, 
without any reasonable expectation that the lawyer is willing to discuss the possibility of forming 
a client-lawyer relationship, is not a 'prospective client' within the meaning of paragraph (a)."  
Ind. Prof. Cond. R. 1.18 cmt. [2].    
 
The information at issue, however, was disclosed to Respondent not long before the 
second call in which AB asked for an attorney referral and Respondent recommended an attorney 
from her firm.  At that point, if not before, AB became a prospective client under Rule 1.18.  The 
formation of an attorney-client relationship with Respondent's firm followed immediately 
thereafter, and the information at issue was highly relevant to the representation.  Respondent 
then revealed the information with knowledge that her firm had been retained to represent AB in 
 
5 
the matter.  Under these circumstances, we conclude that once AB became a prospective client, 
the information became subject to the confidentiality protections of the Rules.   
 
Respondent presented evidence that AB disclosed the information at issue to others, 
including some of AB's co-workers.  Respondent argued to the hearing officer that AB's 
disclosure of the information to others indicated that AB's disclosure to Respondent in the first 
phone conversation was personal rather than professional in nature and not intended to be 
confidential.  However, the fact that a client may chose to confide to others information relating 
to a representation does not waive or negate the confidentiality protections of the Rules, which 
we have found apply to the information at issue.       
 
Respondent also argued to the hearing officer that revelation of the information at issue 
was not barred because it could be discovered by searching various public records and the 
internet.  True, the filing of a divorce petition is a matter of public record, but Respondent 
revealed highly sensitive details of accusations AB's husband made against her to the police.  
There is no evidence that this information was contained in any public record.  Moreover, the 
Rules contain no exception allowing revelation of information relating to a representation even if 
a diligent researcher could unearth it through public sources.2   
 
 
Although we find it unnecessary in this case to explore the outer boundaries of the Rules 
concerning client confidences, the protection provided is broad. 
 
The attorney-client privilege and work-product doctrine apply in judicial and 
other proceedings in which a lawyer may be called as a witness or otherwise 
required to produce evidence concerning a client.  The rule of client-lawyer 
confidentiality applies in situations other than those where evidence is sought 
from the lawyer through compulsion of law.  The confidentiality rule, for 
example, applies not only to matters communicated in confidence by the client 
but also to all information relating to the representation, whatever its 
source."   
 
                                                 
2 We note that Rule 1.9(c)(1) allows for use of information relating to a prior representation if the 
information has become generally known.  Even if this were the provision at issue in this case, there is no 
evidence that the information relating to AB's husband's accusation, or even the divorce filing, was 
generally known. 
 
6 
Ind. Prof. Cond. R. 1.6 cmt. [3] (emphasis added).  An attorney has a duty to prospective, 
current, and former clients to scrupulously avoid revelation of such information, even if, as may 
have been the case here, the attorney is motivated by personal concern for the client.     
 
Conclusion 
 
 
The Court concludes Respondent violated Professional Conduct Rule 1.9(c)(2) by 
improperly revealing information relating to the representation of a former client.  For 
Respondent's professional misconduct, the Court imposes a private reprimand.    
 
The costs of this proceeding are assessed against Respondent.  The hearing officer 
appointed in this case is discharged. 
 
The Clerk of this Court is directed to give notice of this opinion to the hearing officer, to 
the parties or their respective attorneys, and to all other entities entitled to notice under 
Admission and Discipline Rule 23(3)(d).  The Clerk is further directed to post this opinion to the 
Court's website, and Thomson Reuters is directed to publish a copy of this opinion in the bound 
volumes of this Court's decisions. 
 
 
All Justices concur.