Opinion ID: 1130080
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 7

Heading: The Postjudgment Hearing On Assets

Text: Respondent, who had been assigned the hearing on assets in Hathaway's case, talked to her on several occasions about the purpose of and procedure in that stage of the case. He concedes she had talked to him about possibly closing her checking account, opening another one in the name of a third person and about testifying at the assets hearing that she had no personal checking account. The OBA urges that Eakin's ex parte communications with Hathaway and the extraordinary measures he undertook to assist her after the trial are acts prejudicial to the administration of justice. The PRT described that behavior as an unbelievable lack of judicial restraint. Moreover, the OBA adds, the pattern of ex parte communications between Hathaway and Eakin during the various stages is further evidence of conduct involving dishonesty or deceit. Eakin counters that Hathaway, at the request of law enforcement officials, initiated these conversations in an attempt to entrap him. [26] He directs us to Hathaway's testimony that the discussions would not have taken place had she not been equipped with a body microphone to record the conversations. On this record, there is clear and convincing evidence [27] that respondent engaged in extended ex parte communications with a litigant about material components of the merits of a proceeding then pending before the court  the hearing on assets. All this occurred behind the backs of the other litigants. In an adversarial proceeding a lawyer's function is to present proof to the end that the case may be decided according to law. A judge must be a detached arbiter. Eakin's ex parte communications with Hathaway about the impending assets hearing taints the perception of decisional fairness and adversely reflects on his fitness as a licensed practitioner. [28] We hold that respondent's pattern of ex parte communications with Hathaway during the various stages of the forensic contest about material aspects of the pending case is not only prejudicial to the administration of judicial process and in violation of Rule 8.4(d) but, under the facts shown, it is also deceitful and dishonest within the meaning of Rule 8.4(c).