Court Opinion

ID: 9706131
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-26 01:32:15.987082+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:22:19.505696
License: Public Domain

WILLIAM A. BABLITCH, J.
¶ 67. (concurring in part, dissenting in part). I agree with the majority opinion in all respects save one.
¶ 68. The referee concluded that Attorney Gilbert engaged in dishonesty, fraud, deceit, or misrepresentation "by offering (the Board) a videotape" that purported to show her client's execution of the case management agreement. The referee's characterization that Ms. Gilbert somehow intended to mislead the Board by giving them the tape ignores the fact that she was required to do so. There is no indication in this record that had she not been required to do so, she would have provided it anyway.
¶ 69. The majority recognizes this fact, but then asserts that the tape was not what it was intended and designed to be — a memorialization of the client's execution of the agreement. That may or may not be, but those are not the facts this alleged violation of SCR 20:8.4(c) is based upon.
¶ 70. The majority further justifies its approval by stating that in any event Ms. Gilbert did not inform the Board of its deceptive content. It is so utterly clear from witnessing the tape that the client had already signed it that it can scarcely be said that she should have informed the Board of this fact. She should be under no obligation to inform the Board of the obvious.
*477¶ 71. Accordingly, I would not adopt the referee's conclusion with respect only to the above matter.