Summary
The Indiana Supreme Court found that Thomas J. Broderick committed professional misconduct by failing to review a deferral agreement containing a false statement about his client's prior arrests. The Court concluded that his conduct violated Professional Conduct Rules 4.1(a) and 8.4(d) and imposed a public reprimand, with costs assessed against him.
Topics
Practice areas
Questions Presented
- Whether an experienced attorney who knowingly chose not to read a short deferral agreement, while aware that the client's prior arrest had not been disclosed, made a knowing false statement of material fact under Indiana Professional Conduct Rule 4.1(a).
- Whether signing and permitting the client to sign a deferral agreement containing false information, without knowing whether the agreement was accurate, constituted conduct prejudicial to the administration of justice under Indiana Professional Conduct Rule 8.4(d).
- What discipline was appropriate for the violations.
Holdings
- An intentional choice to remain ignorant of a likely false statement in a document can constitute knowing conduct under the particular circumstances presented. Respondent violated Rule 4.1(a) because, although he lacked actual knowledge of the agreement's specific false statement, he knowingly chose not to read the agreement while aware that his son's prior arrest had not been disclosed and therefore knew he did not know what representations he was making.
- Respondent violated Rule 8.4(d) by signing and allowing his son-client to sign the deferral agreement without knowing whether it was accurate, thereby contributing to the son's approval for the deferral program based on false information that may have affected the criminal case.
- A public reprimand was the appropriate discipline, and the costs of the proceeding were assessed against Respondent.
Key quotations
“"Knowingly" . . . denotes actual knowledge of the fact in question.” (929 N.E.2d at 199)
“Respondent therefore knew that he didn't know what representations he was making. He is responsible for any errors.” (929 N.E.2d at 199)
“Signing and allowing his son/client to sign the Agreement without knowing whether it was accurate resulted in approval of his son for the deferral program based on false information that may have affected the outcome of the criminal case.” (929 N.E.2d at 200)
Factual background
While representing his son in an Indiana OWI case, Respondent sought admission to a deferral program that could resolve the case without a criminal conviction. Respondent knew his son had previously been arrested in Florida, but he did not disclose that arrest and did not read the three-page deferral agreement before signing it, despite the agreement's false statement that the defendant had no prior arrests. The prosecutor and deferral administrator relied on the information provided in approving the son's participation in the program.
Procedural history
The Indiana Supreme Court appointed a hearing officer to hear evidence on the Disciplinary Commission's verified complaint against Respondent. After reviewing the hearing officer's report and the parties' briefs, the Court found professional misconduct, imposed a public reprimand, assessed the proceeding costs against Respondent, and discharged the hearing officer.