Did Busby violate professional ethics?
Did Wilson Busby, an attorney retained by the City Council for their investigation into Great Plains Airlines, violate the Oklahoma Rules of Professional Conduct by talking to the Tulsa Whirled about private conversations with members of the Council's investigation committee?
An attorney pointed me to Oklahoma Statutes, Title 5 (Attorneys and the State Bar), Chapter 1, Appendix 3-A, which is the Oklahoma Rules of Professional Conduct. Rule 1.6 (Confidentiality of Information states, in part:
A lawyer shall not reveal information relating to representation of a client unless the client consents after consultation, except for disclosures that are impliedly authorized in order to carry out the representation, and except as stated in paragraphs (b) and (c).
The exemptions involve the client expressing intention to commit a crime or a court ordering disclosure.
Then there's this statement in the comments on the rule:
The requirement of maintaining confidentiality of information relating to representation applies to government lawyers who may disagree with the policy goals that their representation is designed to advance.
If Busby's remarks to the Tulsa Whirled are indeed a violation of the Rules of Professional Conduct, he could be reprimanded or disbarred.
Subscribe to this blog's feed:
Yeah, but there's this loophole:
(b) A lawyer may reveal, to the extent the lawyer reasonably believes necessary, information relating to representation of a client:
Especially when the client isn't being 100 percent truthful about what he says in public.
But there's the little loophole in the rules:
(b) A lawyer may reveal, to the extent the lawyer reasonably believes necessary, information relating to representation of a client:
That's a lot of wiggle room.
Ron, there's a colon at the end of that sentence, and the four subparagraphs of that paragraph describe the purposes for which disclosure is permitted. Here's the complete sentence:
Which of those four rules authorizes the disclosures that Busby made to the Whirled of private conversations that Busby alleges occurred?
There's this:
(3) to establish a claim or defense on behalf of the lawyer in a controversy between the lawyer and the client,
Since there's an obvious controversy between what Medlock says and what Busby says, that gives him a lot of leeway.
I should add that the rules are written vaguely enough that it takes a blatant, serious violation for a lawyer to be caught and then disciplined.
I'm not defending this, but it's just the way it is.
My understanding of the practical part of this rule is that if the client thinks there has been a violation of some ethical standard, they are required to file a complaint with the bar. I also understand that the bar takes these complaints quite seriously, and investigates them vigorously. A complaint unfortunately, will probably never happen, assuming there are city councilors quite happy with the direction the tail of this dog has wagged.
For the teacher of the class on wiggleroom and loopholes, someone should make a list and post them on the internet the history of complaints against FORMER Senator Stipe. He may have served the longest, however, Stipe probably has the most wiggleroom and loopholes ever allowed by a State Senator and practicing attorney (and some might also think of him as an actor with his "too frail/ ill" stunt yet well enough to go on his honeymoon?)
The main problem here, as I see it, is that we allow bumbling and babbleing lawyers too much power.