Court Opinion

ID: 9505596
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-06 20:07:03.216227+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:04:37.828511
License: Public Domain

SHEPARD, Chief Justice,
dissenting, joined by Justice DICKSON:
Mr. Harshey's stunning treatment of his client is remarkably simple to describe.
After the client decided to turn down the defendant corporation's offer of settlement, Harshey decided not to act on the client's decision and set about finding some way to make the client accept it anyway.
He started off with an ex parte communication to the judge who had presided in the client's divorcee, a venue in which Har-shey had no status at all. In the course of this communication, he violated his duty to preserve the confidences of his client by revealing the status of the settlement negotiations.
When the client got wind of what Har-shey was up to and asked him to stop, Harshey lied to the client, claiming he was now representing the lawyers who had litigated the divorce and could be fired only by them.
Fearful that his client might find a way to stop him, Harshey decided to meet with the dissolution judge and the dissolution lawyers a day in advance of the scheduled court hearing to ask for permission to inform the defendant corporation that its settlement would be accepted. In effect, he assured that even if the client showed up at the hearing to stand on his rights, it would be too late. It was too late.
The client who wanted to go to trial- and whose trial was just a few weeks off-never got his day in court. He was thwarted by the active and willful effort of
*855his lawyer, who refused the client's proper instructions, breached his confidences, lied to him, and ex parte'd the judge.
Our disciplinary system should not treat such behavior as a matter for mere reprimand. ©