Opinion ID: 1871835
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Count II: SCR 20:3.4(a) and SCR 20:8.4(c)

Text: ¶ 43. The second count alleges Attorney Alia violated SCR 20:3.4(a) which addresses fairness to opposing party and counsel, and provides that a lawyer shall not unlawfully obstruct another party's access to evidence or unlawfully alter, destroy or conceal a document . . . having potential evidentiary value. ¶ 44. Alternatively, Count II also alleges Attorney Alia violated SCR 20:8.4(c) which provides it is professional misconduct for a lawyer to engage in conduct involving dishonesty, fraud, deceit or misrepresentation. ¶ 45. The referee determined Attorney Alia's conduct violated both these sections when he altered [the appraiser's] report without telling the court, opposing counsel, or the expert witness, and by making further redactions after the expert had testified (and identified the altered report as [the expert's] work when the redactions were not his work). This conduct obstructed Olson's access to evidence, by destroying or concealing information in a document which had potential evidentiary value. This conduct involved misrepresentation because Alia held out Ex. 21 as [the appraiser's] work when he knew it was not. ¶ 46. The record supports the referee's finding that Attorney Alia made additional alterations to exhibit 21 after his expert witness testified on the first day of the trial. Because Attorney Olson's copy, marked exhibit 24, made at the end of the first day of trial, had a copy of the exhibit 21 sticker, and contained only two alterations, it was reasonable for the referee to find that the report contained the two alterations at the end of the first day of trial. Because on the second day of trial exhibit 21 contained many more alterations, it was reasonable for the referee to find that additional alterations to exhibit 21 had been made after the first day of trial. ¶ 47. The referee found only two possible explanations emerged for the differences between exhibits 21 and 24. One was, Alia made changes, by additional white out of 1999 values and references to sales information during the break between the two days of trial. ¶ 48. The other potential explanation was that Olson, in Alia's presence, stole or accidentally took two reports, had time to review them both, find the significant differences and copy only one of the reports, all in approximately five minutes, return one document to court in Alia's presence, and later allow [his client] to collate the two copies into a combined new document. ¶ 49. Because the referee found there was no evidence to show that at the time Attorney Olson made his copy he even knew there were multiple or different copies of the report, and no evidence he had two copies, the referee rejected the latter explanation. We conclude that the referee's finding that Attorney Alia made additional alterations to exhibit 21 after his expert witness testified on the first day of trial is reasonably supported by the record and, therefore, do not disturb it on appeal. Accordingly, we agree with the referee's determination that the OLR met its burden of proof as to Count II.