Opinion ID: 2002832
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Kass' Duty to Disclose Information Subject to the Protective Order

Text: The Skolnicks assert that the appellate court erred by reversing the trial court's order denying Kass' motion to modify the protective order. The Skolnicks' attack on the appellate court judgment is threefold. First, the Skolnicks contend that [t]he [a]ppellate [c]ourt improperly assumed that the mere claim of a reporting obligation by a lawyer for an adverse party strips the trial court of any authority or discretion regarding the protective order. Second, the Skolnicks question whether Kass bore any obligation under the Rules of Professional Conduct to report the alleged misconduct. Third, assuming Kass possessed a duty to report the purported misconduct, the duty was fulfilled by alerting the trial court to Skolnick's alleged wrongdoing. We dispose of each of these arguments seriatim. Trial courts are invested with considerable discretion to supervise the course of discovery as the court deems appropriate. Atwood v. Warner Electric Brake & Clutch Co., 239 Ill.App.3d 81, 88, 179 Ill.Dec. 18, 605 N.E.2d 1032 (1992). The flexibility enjoyed by trial courts in directing discovery extends to the entry of protective orders. May Centers, Inc. v. S.G. Adams Printing & Stationery Co., 153 Ill.App.3d 1018, 1021, 106 Ill.Dec. 891, 506 N.E.2d 691 (1987). Supreme Court Rule 201(c)(1) states: The court may at any time on its own initiative, or on motion of any party or witness, make a protective order as justice requires, denying, limiting, conditioning, or regulating discovery to prevent unreasonable annoyance, expense, embarrassment, disadvantage, or oppression. 166 Ill.2d R. 201(c)(1). The parameters of protective orders are entrusted to the court's discretion. Statland v. Freeman, 112 Ill.2d 494, 499, 98 Ill.Dec. 54, 493 N.E.2d 1075 (1986). We will alter the terms of a protective order only if no reasonable person could adopt the view taken by the circuit court. Cleveringa v. J.I. Case Co., 230 Ill.App.3d 831, 848, 172 Ill.Dec. 523, 595 N.E.2d 1193 (1992). At bar, the protective order proposed by the parties and entered by the circuit court precluded the parties from disclosing information produced by a party during discovery, which the producing party designated as confidential. Information originally obtained from nonparties also could not be disclosed if deemed confidential by a party. The order allowed any party to seek modification of the protective order for good cause. Citing In re Himmel, 125 Ill.2d 531, 127 Ill.Dec. 708, 533 N.E.2d 790 (1988), and Supreme Court Rule 8.3(a) (134 Ill.2d R. 8.3(a)), Kass argued that the content of certain confidential documents obtained during discovery supposedly revealed misconduct by Kenneth Skolnick. Kass insisted that the knowledge of this misconduct necessitated modification of the protective order so that Kass could fulfill her ethical duty to report the purported misconduct to the ARDC. In Himmel, 125 Ill.2d 531, 127 Ill.Dec. 708, 533 N.E.2d 790, Tammy Forsberg retained attorney John Casey to represent her in a personal injury action. Pursuant to a contingency agreement executed between Forsberg and Casey, Casey was to receive one-third of any settlement or verdict he obtained in Forsberg's favor. Casey subsequently obtained a $35,000 settlement for Forsberg, but Casey converted the entire $35,000 for his own use and never forwarded any amount of the settlement to Forsberg. After unsuccessful attempts to get her money from Casey, Forsberg retained attorney James Himmel to help Forsberg recover her share of the personal injury settlement from Casey. In the course of representing Forsberg, Himmel learned that Casey had illegally converted Forsberg's settlement funds. Forsberg, represented by Himmel, then entered into a settlement with Casey, whereby Casey promised to pay Forsberg $75,000 in return for Forsberg's pledge not to bring any legal action against Casey arising out of his conversion of Forsberg's money. Additionally, Forsberg instructed Himmel not to report Casey's professional misconduct to the ARDC. Casey's unethical behavior was eventually revealed, and the ARDC prosecuted Himmel for violation of a prior version of Rule 8.3(a), Illinois Supreme Court Rule 1-103(a) (107 Ill.2d R. 1-103(a)). Like Rule 8.3(a), Rule 1-103(a) imposed on Illinois lawyers an affirmative obligation to report unprivileged knowledge of another lawyer's fraudulent or deceitful conduct to the proper authorities. Himmel, 125 Ill.2d at 539, 127 Ill.Dec. 708, 533 N.E.2d 790; 107 Ill.2d R. 1-103(a). This court affirmed the ARDC's determination that Himmel should be publicly disciplined for failing to report Casey's misconduct to the ARDC. Regardless of Forsberg's direction that Himmel should not inform the ARDC of Casey's actions, Himmel was duty-bound to uphold the rules in the Code [of Professional Responsibility] ( Himmel, 125 Ill.2d at 539, 127 Ill.Dec. 708, 533 N.E.2d 790), including the rule that mandates reporting acts of fraud, deceit or misrepresentation by other lawyers. Himmel, 125 Ill.2d at 541, 127 Ill. Dec. 708, 533 N.E.2d 790. Significantly, the court remarked that failure to report Casey's bad acts necessitated Himmel's suspension, regardless of the absence of a dishonest motive by Himmel. Himmel, 125 Ill.2d at 542, 127 Ill.Dec. 708, 533 N.E.2d 790. Himmel's knowledge of Casey's conduct involving dishonesty, fraud, deceit, or misrepresentation, where that knowledge is otherwise not subject to the attorney/client privilege, was sufficient to impose on Himmel an obligation to report Casey to the ARDC. Failing in that obligation, Himmel was himself subject to punishment. Himmel, 125 Ill.2d at 543, 127 Ill.Dec. 708, 533 N.E.2d 790. As stated in Himmel, the duty to report misconduct is absolute. See also Jacobson v. Knepper & Moga, P.C., 185 Ill.2d 372, 377, 235 Ill.Dec. 936, 706 N.E.2d 491 (1998). Further, the duty, and the certain discipline that flows from a breach of that duty, is animated by a desire to: maintain the integrity of the legal profession, further the ends of justice, and protect the public from unscrupulous attorneys. Himmel, 125 Ill.2d at 544, 127 Ill. Dec. 708, 533 N.E.2d 790; In re Demuth, 126 Ill.2d 1, 13, 127 Ill.Dec. 785, 533 N.E.2d 867 (1988); In re Imming, 131 Ill.2d 239, 260, 137 Ill.Dec. 62, 545 N.E.2d 715 (1989). Although Rule 201(c)(1) permits courts to enter protective orders as justice requires, the principles underlying a lawyer's Himmel obligation are so important that, in our opinion, only the weightiest considerations of justice (166 Ill.2d R. 201(c)(1)) could excuse a trial court's refusal to modify a protective order so that counsel could fulfill its absolute, ethical duties. In this case, the Skolnicks fail to identify any reason why Kass' ethical obligations should yield to the terms of the protective order. Further, the trial court neglected to explain why it denied Kass' motion to modify the protective order. The transcript of the hearing on the motion to modify the protective order indicates only that the court entertained argument of counsel and then ruled in the Skolnicks' favor. In the absence of any stated justification for refusing to modify the protective order, the interests of justice weigh decidedly in favor of allowing Kass to fulfill her ethical duty to disclose the alleged attorney misconduct. The Skolnicks next contend that the circumstances of the present lawsuit do not trigger the reporting obligations stated in Rule 8.3(a) (134 Ill.2d R. 8.3(a)). An attorney is obliged to report the misconduct of another attorney only under the following circumstances: (a) A lawyer possessing knowledge not otherwise protected as a confidence by these Rules or by law that another lawyer has committed a violation of Rule 8.4(a)(3) or (a)(4) shall report such knowledge to a tribunal or other authority empowered to investigate or act upon such violation. 134 Ill.2d R. 8.3(a). Rule 8.4(a)(3) forbids lawyers from committing criminal acts that reflect adversely on their trustworthiness, honesty or fitness as an attorney. 134 Ill.2d R. 8.4(a)(3). Rule 8.4(a)(4) bars lawyers from engaging in conduct involving fraud, dishonesty, deceit or misrepresentation. 134 Ill.2d R. 8.4(a)(4). The Skolnicks assert first that the information Kass sought to disclose is protected as a confidence and therefore expressly excepted from the obligation to report stated in Rule 8.3(a). The Skolnicks derive their interpretation of confidence from the documents that the Skolnicks tagged with the label confidential during discovery. Their interpretation of the meaning of confidence as it is used in Rule 8.3 is misguided. The Rules of Professional Conduct contain a Terminology section to define designated words used in the rules. According to the definition supplied by this court, [c]onfidence denotes information protected by the lawyer-client privilege under applicable law. 134 Ill.2d 472. The Skolnicks do not claim that the documents in question are subject to the attorney/client privilege. Accordingly, Kass is in no danger of improperly revealing a confidence, as described in Rule 8.3. The Skolnicks maintain that Kass cannot report any alleged misconduct to the ARDC because Kass does not possess knowledge    that another lawyer has committed a violation of    Rule 8.4(a)(3) or (a)(4). Apparently, the Skolnicks believe that knowledge means absolute certainty and, further, that Kass failed to demonstrate the alleged wrongdoing with a sufficient degree of certainty to justify any report to the ARDC. The Skolnicks offer no authority to support their interpretation. However, we note that the terminology section of the Code of Professional Conduct defines [k]nowingly, known and knows as actual knowledge which may be inferred from circumstances. 134 Ill.2d 472; Annotated Model Rules of Professional Conduct 555 (3d ed.1996). Further, the knowledge requirement of our Rule 8.3 is similar to Model Rule 8.3 propounded by the American Bar Association (ABA). Annotated Model Rules of Professional Conduct 555 (3d ed.1996). Upon review of ethical opinions from other states, the ABA has concluded that the knowledge requirement of Model Rule 8.3 requires more than a mere suspicion but need not amount to absolute certainty. Annotated Model Rules of Professional Conduct 555 (3d ed.1996). We have examined the documents filed under seal in support of Kass' motion to modify the protective order. We will not divulge the contents of the documents, but we are satisfied that the information contained in the documents raises more than a mere suspicion of misconduct by Kenneth Skolnick. Kass could reasonably infer from the circumstances of the events revealed by the documents that conduct of the sort described in Rules 8.4(a)(3) and 8.4(a)(4) had occurred. Therefore, Kass possessed adequate knowledge to trigger the reporting responsibilities under Rule 8.3. We emphasize, however, that while we conclude that Kass had a duty to report the suspected misconduct to the ARDC, we do not render an opinion as to the merits of any charges that may or may not be filed against Kenneth Skolnick as a result of the information the ARDC receives in relation to this matter. Lastly, the Skolnicks argue that Kass can discharge her ethical duty to report lawyer misconduct by informing the trial court of the alleged misbehavior, and that Kass need not alert the ARDC to her suspicions of Skolnick's supposed wrongdoing. In support of this argument, the Skolnicks quote Rule 8.3(a), which directs those reporting misconduct to do so to a tribunal or other authority empowered to investigate or act upon such violation. (Emphasis added.) 134 Ill.2d R. 8.3(a). The Skolnicks misinterpret Rule 8.3(a). The word tribunal must be read in the context of the entire sentence in which it appears. M.I.G. Investments, Inc. v. Environmental Protection Agency, 122 Ill.2d 392, 400, 119 Ill.Dec. 533, 523 N.E.2d 1 (1988). The proper inquiry is not whether a tribunal means a trial court, as the Skolnicks contend, but rather means what authority or authorities are empowered to act upon a charge of attorney misconduct. As stated in Rule 8.3(a), only an authority granted such power may receive reports of misconduct. 134 Ill.2d R. 8.3(a). In Illinois, only this court possesses the inherent power to discipline attorneys who have been admitted to practice before it. In re Harris, 93 Ill.2d 285, 291, 66 Ill.Dec. 631, 443 N.E.2d 557 (1982). The court, in turn, has delegated the authority to investigate and prosecute claims of attorney misconduct to the ARDC. In re Mitan, 75 Ill.2d 118, 123-24, 25 Ill.Dec. 622, 387 N.E.2d 278 (1979). Further, while a trial court bears an independent responsibility to report attorney misconduct to the ARDC (155 Ill.2d R. 63(B)(3)), only this court may discipline an attorney found guilty of ethical misbehavior. In re Himmel, 125 Ill.2d at 544, 127 Ill.Dec. 708, 533 N.E.2d 790. Thus, Kass is correct in arguing that she was required to report the claimed misconduct to the ARDC. See also People v. Camden, 210 Ill.App.3d 921, 926, 155 Ill.Dec. 312, 569 N.E.2d 312 (1991). Her duty to report cannot be discharged by reporting the suspected misconduct to the trial court. The trial court's refusal to modify the protective order prevented Kass from fulfilling her obligation to report attorney misconduct to the ARDC. We find that the trial court's refusal to modify the protective order was not a reasonable exercise of the trial court's discretion. We affirm the appellate court judgment to the extent it reversed the trial court's order denying Kass' motion to modify the protective order.