Final: Research Assignment
Jennifer Cordova
Liberty University
Govt 325
Professor Wade
07/02/2025
Introduction
The meaning behind this paper is to do our own research on the subject of mandating
being above reproach and how this is something that can interfere with the professionalism of
an attorney or the Model Rules regarding the expertise of the attorney as well as the attorney-
client communication. I fully believe to better write a paper in being ‘above reproach’ you need
to truthfully understand the meaning of it. It is also important to fully understand the purpose
behind the Model Rules of Professional Conduct. After reading a few articles, I had stumbled
across one written by Tim Challies that said, ‘It means that no one can legitimately rebuke you
or make any charges against you that will stick, they may accuse, but your conduct will
eventually acquit you by proving you blameless.’ Above reproach having a secondary meaning
of being ‘blameless’. Attorneys regardless of the position held by them are still help to a set of
rules and standards that they must follow. The ABA Model Rules of Professional Conduct
oversees the attorney's actions to ensure that not only the client is fairly represented but these
rules are in place to also safeguard the attorney. Regardless of the situation the attorney is
presented with, they must remain professional. The questions are brought up when the
obligations of the attorney are affected by the mandate to be above reproach. To be considered
above reproach the situation the attorney is presented with must be handled in a manner that
is morally as well as ethically correct. As attorneys who follow a Biblical path as well as ensuring
the ABA Model Rules are applied, we can ensure the idea behind being above reproach. As I
continue this paper, I will also include the Rules I believe are crucial in order to stay above
reproach.
ABA Model Rule 1.1: Competence
When standing for a client an attorney should be competent on the subject in which
they are representing for. When being representation for a client you must have the skill and
legal knowledge as well as being adequately prepared to represent said client in a fair manner.
When it comes to finding if a lawyer is knowledgeable on a subject matter as well as if they have
the skills capable to accurately stand for a client this can all depend on what the case is
surrounding. To determine if a client stands a chance at winning will also be determined on the
attorneys competency. While training is not the absolute to address a particular caseload, if you
have little to no legal knowledge or experience on a matter it does not allow your client a fair
opportunity. However there does run a possibility that a newly barred attorney could have as
much, if not more knowledge of a subject as an experienced or seasoned attorney.
If an attorney is presented with a case that they are unfamiliar with, it is expected of the
attorney, under these sets of rules to inform the client that they are not competent in that
matter and to seek other counsel or the attorney can seek additional help from other attorneys.
Attorney incompetence can be shown in various ways; from an attorney neglecting to meet
promised deadlines to horrible decision making and poor strategy. While I was scanning the
Indiana Law Review, there were two cases in 2014 that ended up being disciplinary that ended
up being resolves by the Indiana Supreme Court. Both cases presented involved attorney
incompetence. Re Lehman, was brought in from of the Supreme Court involving his bankruptcy
firm and various acts of incompetence. One of the clients that hired Lehman to obtain help with
bankruptcy so they could continue owning and running their business. A Chapter 7 petition
allowing the client to file for bankruptcy was filed by Lehman. Liquidation bankruptcy is also
considered a Chapter 7 bankruptcy petition, and Chapter 7 liquidates debt, and it stops the
owner of the business, in this case the client, and they are ordered to refrain from operating the
business. The client in this case went to this firm to get assistance to they can keep their
business open and in return was faced with losing their business.
While reading about this case I took notice that the Indiana Supreme Court had an order
in which this was said, ‘Judges before whom [Lehman] practices gave detailed testimony
regarding [Lehman]’s deficiencies in 16 different cases.’ They then testified that, ‘[Lehman] has
consistently practiced far below the average level of performance for attorneys in Elkhart
County.’ In re Stern an elderly client hired Stern to represent them with a case involving
demolition and a run down commercial building the client had owned. The city of Indianapolis
had sent the client an order to demolish, and Stern agreed to represent the client and try to
protect her from the liability financially because of the conditions of the building that was due
to be demolished. In order for them to review the order, the attorney had a time frame of 10
days to file the complaint; in this case the attorney had failed to abide by that time frame. In
this case there was also a third party, who had no intentions to sue, who the attorney had
joined as a plaintiff. The attorney in this case was under the assumption that if the client no
longer had ties including ownership to said building, that the client would not be held financially
responsible for the shape and condition of the structure. A deed was then drafted to the
building for the ownership to be transferred to the attorney’s paralegal, in which this paralegal
ended up needing this attorney to represent them in the same case that they were representing
the other client for.
The city actually had a statute in place that when an order for demolish is issued, all of
the owners are financially responsible for the cost; including the cost of the demolition, as well
as other cost pertaining to that building. When the attorney transferred the building to his
paralegal, he did not assist his client with the concern that was presented to him. The attorney
gave the property to the paralegal while the client he is representing is still held responsible for
the cost and they are now out of a deed for the building. A conflict of interest also took place in
this case, when Stern transferred the building, he then became the sole representation to his
paralegal as well as his client and now both are held equally responsible for the cost of the
demolition. A counter-complaint was then filed by Stern for the damages against two
employees that were employed by the city. The court was not impressed with this case that
Stern presented to them and continued to advance the demolition orders. When all was dine
the final cost Stern’s client was obligated to pay totaled to almost $17,200. Stern failed to
appeal the first lawsuit and proceeded to file a new suit. The new lawsuit was still filed against
the two employees from the city from the previous case, and once again Stern had neglected to
follow the requirements set by the State of Indiana and neglected to file a tort claim in court
prior to filing the secondary suit being filed. This resulted in the second suit being filed by Stern
to be dismissed by the Courts. Stern was very persistent in his endeavors and filed a third
lawsuit, however what Stern did differently was this time it was against the Director of the
Department of Metropolitan Developments and it was not held in a state level court, but a
federal level court. This case was seeking damages for his paralegal stating that her rights were
violated because he was not given proper notice of the demolition date prior to it taking place.
In this case if the elderly client failed to give notice that the building up for demolition was being
transferred to another individual then the elderly client will in fact be held responsible for the
amount due to demolition. Stern was representing two clients who were battling against each
other. If one was to win the other would lose and he is in the middle of them both, For Stern’s
third lawsuit the court had allowed the judgement against Stern. Stating Stern did not attempt
to look at and exhaust all state remedies. It was stated by the Court of Appeals that ‘Claims
were not ripe and otherwise meritless.’ Showing that in this case the attorney lacked proper
knowledge of the situation.
ABA Model Rule 1.3: Diligence
When an attorney is representing a client an attorney should be respectful with the
clients time and act in a diligent manner. Regardless of a client’s case an attorney should pursue
justice regardless if it causes a ‘personal inconvenience’ to the attorney. An attorney must also
be dedicated to the clients interest and advocate for the client they are representing. While an
attorney is not specifically ‘bound’ to their client, it is importantly for every advantage to be
taken if it does benefit the client. A good example would be a lawyer might have discretion in
how a case matter is handled. Cases can also almost change instantly, it goes based off if an
attorney happens to miss a certain statute it might affect the client severely. It can cause a delay
in the case causing the trust between the client and the attorney to be lost. A good example
regarding diligence and attorneys is Goodridge, who is an attorney in Evansville Indiana.
According to the Indiana Lawyer John Goodridge was reprimanded in private when as an
attorney he neglected to act diligently when it came to attorney-client privilege. Goodridge was
retained in a case where the clients home and property was racially targeted and burned down.
On September 14th Chief Justice Rush signed Goodridge’s discipline. In 2018 a complaint was
filed against Goodridge and it claimed that he failed to act with a reasonable amount of
diligence. The complaint was filed on behalf of family members who had ownership of the
vandalized property. Allegedly it was stated between February of 2013 and January of 2015 that
Goodridge had only communicated with the client up to a total of 6 times, which is violating the
Model Rule 1.3. According to the complaint during that time frame absolutely no
communication to any other clients was attempted. In the complaint it had also stated that
between January 2015 and May 2016 that the attorney had failed to communicate with his
clients up until the day he was forced to remove himself from the court case because of a
conflict of interest. Goodridge was then privately reprimanded by the Supreme Court and forced
to pay monetary damages that were placed against him.
ABA Model Rule 1.4: Communication
When representing a client an attorney should be courteous and prompt with
communication regarding the decisions surrounding the client’s case as stated in Rule 1.0(e) is
necessary by these rules. An attorney must ‘reasonably consult with the client about the means
by which the client’s objectives are to be accomplished; keep the client reasonably informed
about the status of the matters promptly comply with reasonable request for information and;
consult with the client about any relevant limitation on the lawyers conduct when the lawyer
knows that the client expects assistance not permitted by the Rules of Professional Conduct or
other laws.’ It is expected for the attorney to explain a matter to a client’s but in a way that the
client understands so that they can fully understand and make a clear decision about their case.
Clear communication between the client and the attorney is detrimental to ensure fair
representation. A really good case I was recommended to read about for lack of communication
between parties is in the case of Stuart Schlesinger. The New York Times has stated guard would
‘put off plaintiffs demands with a litany of excuses.’ He would make statements that it was
because they were short staffed or were having electrical issues. From the outside looking in, his
peers were under the assumption that he was a very well-off attorney. They seen he
accomplished cases involving insurance settlements and taught at a Law School in New York
while publishing articles for the New York Law Journal. He was eventually taken into custody by
the FBI and barred from practicing, he was also guilty for embezzling roughly $5 million from the
clients he was supposed to help For the Statute for his crimes he was facing a maximum of 20
years in a federal prison.
Bruce Asay is another example of violations of Rule 1.4, this case took place in the State
of Wyoming where the Supreme Court put in place a ‘public censure’ for Asay. This attorney was
representation to a client who had issues regarding an unemployment insurance claim along
with another claim for discrimination. Before services could be initiated and the claims filed the
attorney required a retainer fee of $400 in which this payment would go into a trust account,
which is an account that attorneys have for the sole purpose of holding funds for a client when
they are obligated to pay for certain services, The attorney and the client were not on the same
page as far as the fees regarding the services, in which he states that the hourly rate is for the
unemployment suit and the discrimination suit was more of a fixed price. It was then claimed by
the client that their understanding was that after the initial two consultations which was
performed hourly, it was understood by the client that the rest would be on a contingent rate.
After the attorney had finished both matters for his client he then turned around and
sued his client for the cost close to $70,000. In response to this matter, the client then contacted
the State Bar for Wyoming and the Bar Counsel to file a complaint on the attorney. After the Bar
Counsel conducted an investigation concerning these allegations it was then determined that
various Rules of Professional Conduct was violated by the attorney in which a disciplinary charge
was brought onto the lawyer. The Board had found Asay was guilty of being in violation of Rule
1.4 because he neglected to openly and clearly communicate to the client what the fee
arrangement would be and what to expect. It was also found by the Board that he was charging
an ‘unreasonable’ amount for fees and failed to have a written agreement in place. They also
found him in violation of Rule 1.5. He had violated this rule when the funds provided by the
client intended for a different reason the client was aware of, being used and applied to other
fees without the knowledge of the client. The Supreme Court of Wyoming filed a report and a
public censure for the conduct of the attorney. The Wyoming state bar was ordered to be paid
$7,026.42 by the attorney plus the $750 administration fees.
ABA Model Rule 1.6: Confidentiality of Information
Unless a client gives informed consent to the attorney that they can discuss case matters
with others outside of said case; the attorney shall not expose any information relating to the
client’s representation. If revealing information is necessary, then a lawyer may reveal
information. However, only to ‘prevent reasonably certain death or bodily harm; to prevent the
client from committing a crime or fraud that is reasonably certain to result in substantial injury
to the financial interest of property of another and in furtherance of which the client has used
or is using the lawyers services; to secure legal advice about the lawyers compliance with these
rules; to establish a. Claim of defense on behalf of the lawyer in a controversy between the
lawyer and the client; to establish a defense to a criminal charge or civil claim against the lawyer
based upon conduct in which the client was involved or to respond to allegations in any
proceeding concerning the lawyers representation of the client; to comply with other laws or a
court order; or to detect and resolve conflicts of interest arising from the lawyers change of
employment or from changes in composition of ownership of a firm, but only if the revealed
information would not compromise the attorney-client privilege or otherwise prejudice the
client. A lawyer shall make reasonable efforts to prevent the inadvertent access to, information
relating to the representation of a client.’
This rule is an added safeguard for not just clients, but for attorneys as well. Lawyers
become officers of the court hen they take an oath, or they are sworn in, therefore attorneys
must adhere to court rules and orders. If an attorney needs to build a claim to defend oneself
they attorney has the right t disclose certain information. An example is, if a past client was
trying to sue an attorney for XYZ, said attorney can disclose confidential information regarding
the case to protect themselves. In a situation such as this, it is very important to understand the
differences between attorney-client protected information and duty of confidentiality
information that is protected. Communication between the attorney and the client is all
information that is kept in private. Where as even after a case concludes, and even during
nothing about the case can be mentioned in order to maintain that duty of confidentiality.
Communication between an attorney and a client can not be brought upon by a Judge, however,
confidential case information may be considered different.
Above Reproach
The ABA Model Rules is not the only exception to the obligations of an attorneys
reproach. We as Christians have a strong ethical and moral foundation paved by the Bible and
the Lord, however the Model Rules also serve as a guide to represent your clients in a way that
is deemed acceptable and Christian. I had taken notice that not all attorneys will follow the
same Biblical approach as most, however precautionary measures can be taken in place to
prevent any potential damage to clients, attorneys or even a firm. It is very important to take
notice of potential violations to try to mitigate the problem before it causes long term damages.
Conclusion
In terms of correcting, reprimanding or disapproving ultimately that is what reproach is.
Holding yourself higher than the standard bar that is set could be holding yourself higher than
those who don’t abide by the Rules and the Lord. While holding yourself higher however never
means we don’t sin because we as humans will never lead a sinless life. Being above reproach
can mean that we are trying to live a sinless life or try our best to avoid things that do not align
with us spiritually. An attorney avoiding occurrences that could interfere with their career and
living the way God intended will set the attorney up for success. In the Bible when you read
Timothy, I think of being trustworthy. Being an overseer is such an honorable task that in order
to do such, you must be above reproach. The household must be managed because if one's
house can not be controlled then how can the Church of God be tended to? Professional
aspects of attorneys must follow the Model Rules, whereas; as Christian attorneys that follow
the principles of the Lord, we follow the rules meant for God’s people as well. An attorney that
follows the Lord and the ABA Model Rules will always stay above reproach.
References
Tim Chaellies, The Character of Christians: Above reproach, Jan 21,2016, Web, 1
https://www.challies.com/articles/the-character-of-the-christian above-reproach/
https://www.nytimes.com/2016/05/22/nyregion/a-manhattan-lawyers-slipand-fall.html.
Wyoming state Bar, SUPREME COURT CENSURES CHEYENNE ATTORNEY, May 16, 2016,
. American Bar Association, Model Rules of Professional Conduct, Rule 1.4
[1], page 19
. American Bar Association, Model Rules of Professional Conduct, Rule 1.6
[1], page 26
Web, https://www.wyomingbar.org/4182-2/. American Bar Association, Model Rules of
Professional Conduct, Rule 1.6, pages 25-26
https://indianalawreview.com/2014/09/25/a,ttorney-incompetence-and-
discipline. American Bar Association, Model Rules of Professional Conduct, Rule 1.3, page 17
https://indianalawreview.com/2014/09/25/a,ttorney-incompetence-anddiscipline,. Indiana Law
Review, Competence, Sept 25,2014, Web,
. Benjamin Weiser, New Your Times, A Manhattan Lawyer’s Slip and Fall, May 21,2016, Web,
. The Indiana Lawyer, Sept 17,2018, Web,
https://www.theindianalawyer.com/articles/48142-
. American Bar Association, Model Rules of Professional Conduct, Rule 1.1 [2], page 12
