In re Himmel

Last updated
In re Himmel
Seal of the Supreme Court of Illinois.svg
Court Supreme Court of Illinois
Full case nameIn re James H. Himmel, Attorney
DecidedSeptember 22, 1988
Citation(s)125 Ill.2d 531; 533 N.E.2d 790 (Ill. 1988)
Court membership
Judge(s) sittingJohn J. Stamos, Benjamin K. Miller, William G. Clark, Daniel P. Ward, Howard C. Ryan, Thomas J. Moran
Case opinions
Unanimous opinion by Stamos

In re Himmel, 125 Ill.2d 531, 533 N.E.2d 790 (Ill. 1988), was a case decided by the Supreme Court of Illinois that upheld the suspension of an attorney's license for failing to report misconduct by another attorney.

Contents

Factual background

Himmel, an attorney, agreed to represent the 18-year-old victim of a motorcycle accident to recover settlement money from her first attorney. The client had won a $23,000 settlement after the accident, but her first attorney had allegedly pocketed the money instead. The client asked Himmel not to report the first lawyer's misconduct to the Illinois Attorney Registration and Disciplinary Commission (IARDC) because she feared that it would hinder the recovery efforts. Over the course of 24 months, Himmel brokered an agreement where the first attorney promised to pay $75,000 if the client agreed not to prosecute.

In 1986, the IADRC charged Himmel with a violation of Rule 1-103(a) of the Illinois Code of Professional Responsibility for failing to report the first attorney's misconduct. [1]

Decision

The court held that Himmel had a duty to report the misconduct of the first attorney under Rule 1-103(a), which requires lawyers with knowledge of misconduct by another lawyer to report it to the appropriate disciplinary authority. [2] The court held that the client's communication about the first attorney's misconduct was not protected by the attorney–client privilege because she had discussed the matter in the presence of non-privileged third parties (her mother and fiancé).

The court upheld the IADRC's decision to suspend Himmel's license for one year. [3]

Impact

In the years preceding the decision, the Illinois and Chicago bars had been greatly criticized as a result of Operation Greylord, in which lawyers failed to report the misconduct of other attorneys. [4] Months earlier, in a case cited in this decision, In re Anglin, 122 Ill.2d 531, 525 N.E.2d 550 (May 18, 1988), the Illinois Supreme Court refused to reinstate the law license of an attorney convicted of (among other felonies) possessing stolen securities, and who wished to be reinstated while continuing to withhold the name of the person or persons from whom he received the stolen securities. These combined situations greatly increased the frequency of attorney misconduct reporting. In 1988, 154 attorneys were reported for misconduct in Illinois. In 1989, 922 attorneys were reported for misconduct. [5]

Often cited discussion of the Himmel rule are by Richard W. Burke in 3 Geo.J.Legal Ethics 643 (1989-1990) and by Bruce Green in 39 William & Mary Law Review pp. 357–392 (vol. 39, issue 2), although the case has been cited over 300 times, as well as at least mentioned in over 200 law reviews. [6] At least one lawyer has criticized the Himmel rule as more effective at fostering distrust among lawyers than at rooting out misconduct. [7] In 1991, California declined to follow the Himmel rule and adopted Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code § 6068(o), which requires an attorney to self-report misconduct but not the misconduct of other attorneys. [8] The Rhode Island Supreme Court also distinguished the case in In re Ethics Advisory Panel Opinion No. 92-1. [9] The Chicago Bar Association most recently published a mention of the decision in 2004. [10]

Related Research Articles

Disbarment, also known as striking off, is the removal of a lawyer from a bar association or the practice of law, thus revoking their law license or admission to practice law. Disbarment is usually a punishment for unethical or criminal conduct but may also be imposed for incompetence or incapacity. Procedures vary depending on the law society; temporary disbarment may be referred to as suspension.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">New York Supreme Court, Appellate Division</span> Intermediate appellate courts in the state of New York

The Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York is the intermediate appellate court in New York State. The state is geographically divided into four judicial departments of the Appellate Division. The full title of each is, for example, the "Fourth Department" is "Supreme Court of the State of New York, Appellate Division, Fourth Judicial Department").

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Case citation</span> System for uniquely identifying individual rulings of a court

Case citation is a system used by legal professionals to identify past court case decisions, either in series of books called reporters or law reports, or in a neutral style that identifies a decision regardless of where it is reported. Case citations are formatted differently in different jurisdictions, but generally contain the same key information.

A contingent fee is any fee for services provided where the fee is payable only if there is a favourable result. Although such a fee may be used in many fields, it is particularly well associated with legal practice.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">State Bar of California</span> Californias official attorney licensing agency

The State Bar of California is California's official attorney licensing agency. It is responsible for managing the admission of lawyers to the practice of law, investigating complaints of professional misconduct, prescribing appropriate discipline, accepting attorney-member fees, and financially distributing sums paid through attorney trust accounts to fund nonprofit legal entities. It is directly responsible to the Supreme Court of California; however, its Trustees are now appointed by the Supreme Court, the California Legislature, and Governor of California. All attorney admissions are issued as recommendations of the State Bar, which are then routinely ratified by the Supreme Court. Attorney discipline is handled by the State Bar Office of Chief Trial Counsel, which acts as prosecutor before the State Bar Court of California.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">State Bar of Texas</span> Bar Association

The State Bar of Texas is an agency of the judiciary under the administrative control of the Texas Supreme Court. It is responsible for assisting the Texas Supreme Court in overseeing all attorneys licensed to practice law in Texas. With more than 100,000 active members, the State Bar of Texas is one of the largest state bars in the United States. Unlike the American Bar Association (ABA), the State Bar of Texas (SBOT) is a mandatory bar. The State Bar is headquartered in the Texas Law Center at 1414 Colorado Street in Austin.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Stephen Reinhardt</span> American judge

Stephen Roy Reinhardt was a United States circuit judge of the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, with chambers in Los Angeles, California. He was the last federal appeals court judge in active service to have been appointed to his position by President Jimmy Carter.

Attorney misconduct is unethical or illegal conduct by an attorney. Attorney misconduct may include: conflict of interest, overbilling, refusing to represent a client for political or professional motives, false or misleading statements, knowingly accepting worthless lawsuits, hiding evidence, abandoning a client, failing to disclose all relevant facts, arguing a position while neglecting to disclose prior law which might counter the argument, or having sex with a client.

The Washington State Bar Association (WSBA) operates under the delegated authority of the Washington Supreme Court to license the state's nearly 41,000 active and inactive lawyers and other legal professionals. In furtherance of its obligation to protect and serve the public, the WSBA regulates lawyers and other legal professionals and serves its members as a professional association. The WSBA's mission is to serve the public and the members of the Bar, to ensure the integrity of the legal profession, and to champion justice.

Pro se legal representation comes from Latin pro se, meaning "for oneself" or "on behalf of themselves" which, in modern law, means to argue on one's own behalf in a legal proceeding, as a defendant or plaintiff in civil cases, or a defendant in criminal cases, rather than have representation from counsel or an attorney.

The Oregon State Bar Association (OSBA) is a public corporation and instrumentality of the Oregon Judicial Department in the U.S. state of Oregon. Founded in 1890 as the private Oregon Bar Association, it became a public entity in 1935 that regulates the legal profession. The public corporation is part of the Oregon Judicial Department.

Judicial misconduct occurs when a judge acts in ways that are considered unethical or otherwise violate the judge's obligations of impartial conduct.

Legal Services Corp. v. Velazquez, 531 U.S. 533 (2001), is a decision of the Supreme Court of the United States concerning the constitutionality of funding restrictions imposed by the United States Congress. At issue were restrictions on the Legal Services Corporation (LSC), a private, nonprofit corporation established by Congress. The restrictions prohibited LSC attorneys from representing clients attempting to amend existing welfare law. The case was brought by Carmen Velazquez, whose LSC-funded attorneys sought to challenge existing welfare provisions since they believed that it was the only way to get Velazquez financial relief.

Taylor v. Illinois, 484 U.S. 400 (1988), is a United States Supreme Court decision in which the Court held that defense witnesses can be prevented from testifying under certain circumstances, even if that hurts the defense's case. Taylor was the first case to hold that there is no absolute bar to blocking the testimony of a surprise witness, even if that is an essential witness for the defendant, a limitation of the broad right to present a defense recognized in Washington v. Texas (1967).

The Alaska Bar Association is a mandatory bar association responsible for the Alaska Supreme Court and for the admission and discipline process of attorneys for the state of Alaska.

People's Law Office (PLO) is a law office in Chicago, Illinois, which focuses on public interest law, representing clients believed to have been the subject of attacks by governmental officials and agencies. It was founded in 1969. Clients have included political activists, people who have been wrongfully arrested and imprisoned, or subjected to excessive force; and criminal defendants.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Judiciary of California</span>

The Judiciary of California or the Judicial Branch of California is defined under the California Constitution as holding the judicial power of the state of California which is vested in the Supreme Court, the Courts of Appeal and the Superior Courts. The judiciary has a hierarchical structure with the California Supreme Court at the top, California Courts of Appeal as the primary appellate courts, and the California Superior Courts as the primary trial courts.

The judiciary of Illinois is the unified court system of Illinois responsible for applying the Constitution and law of Illinois. It consists of the Supreme Court, the Appellate Court, and circuit courts. The Supreme Court oversees the administration of the court system.

Chicago Options Associates (COA) is a finance company in Chicago, Illinois which specializes in trading options and futures contracts. It was founded in 1987 by Oliver R. W. Pergams and Michael E. Davis. In 1994 Davis was its chief executive officer, hiring then-graduate student Jimmy Wales as research director; Wales served in this position until 1998.

Peel v. Attorney Disciplinary Commission of Illinois, 496 US 91 (1990), was a decision of the Supreme Court of the United States that Illinois' rule against attorneys advertising themselves as "certified" violated their freedom of speech under the First Amendment. The Illinois Attorney Registration and Disciplinary Commission (IARDC) had found that Peel's letterhead, which stated that he was "Certified Civil Trial Specialist By the National Board of Trial Advocacy," had broken state professional rules, and the Illinois Supreme Court had adopted their recommendation of public sanction. The U.S. Supreme Court reversed, saying the letterhead was truthful, and the First Amendment favored disclosure over concealing information.

References

  1. ↑ In re Himmel, 533 N.E.2d 790, 791 (Ill. 1988)
  2. ↑ 107 Ill.2d R. 1-103(a)
  3. ↑ In re Himmel, 533 N.E.2d 790, 794 (Ill. 1988)
  4. ↑ William J. Wernz, To Report or Not to Report, Bench and Bar of Minnesota (December 1988)
  5. ↑ Daryl van Duch, "Best Snitches: Land of Lincoln Leads the Nation in Attorneys Turning in Their Peers". Natl. L.J., Jan. 27, 1997, at A1
  6. ↑ Google Scholar search 1/3/15 finds 326 citing documents; hein online search discloses 202 article citations.
  7. ↑ Duch at A1
  8. ↑ Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code § 6068(o)
  9. ↑ 627 A.2d 317 (R.I. June 25, 1993) (No. 93-41-M.P.)
  10. ↑ John Levin, "You Got Questions? They Got Answers", 18 C.B.A. Rec. 47 (2004).
This page is based on this Wikipedia article
Text is available under the CC BY-SA 4.0 license; additional terms may apply.
Images, videos and audio are available under their respective licenses.