Liability of the Attorney who Advises Disobedience The - PDF document

sanction^.^ Should he was given from liability, Cal. United Mine Conkling, 108 Misc. 234, 177 N.Y.S. 610 almost universally in contempt never actually discussed in line between tenuous. Compare, CO.~ and People ex rel. Alexander v. District C~urt.~ bankrupt's prop- his position property. After holding nevertheless refused given bad advice, court felt they are maintain."8 A different result prohibi- tiome general admonished duty to rather than general guilty advice.1° "Parties cannot take into their hands and settle wrong."ll general is such a same obligations Conn. Co., 189 261-62. 9. Under cover of the writ the board then proceeded to make assessments, the very act which was prohibited by the injunction. People ex rel. Alexander v. District Court, 29 Colo. at -, was, however, indication in that the went so advise disobedience; liability may well be ture, attorneys charged with recommend compliance. No court has yet, in recommend compli- ance with a order.lB many times ries may differ client.le he may lawyer may his responsibilities, counselled no his advice characterized as court order, contempt.a0 language is feeling on sub- je~t.~l with a duty than resist a order should more se- for him 1108 (1884) that it upon him monish observance McFarland for imposing Noyes, for example, disobedience or merely opinions on Fleming, 170 -, 125 A. 486, 488 (1924)("How his clients in disobedience a decree upon only his -, (such conduct "cannot severely con- any such practice is contempt."); Goodenough 1874)(attorney advises violation laws becomes client's guilt). ute must may be imposed for advising disobedi- en~e,~~ also been doubt.3o One may that it a penalty may he recommend in order subpoena.3a and battery he could next term "A' "s advice.33 general boundaries injunction against advising disobedience those boundaries. result in advise disobedience with- risking adverse consequences. to the above, some general rules advising disobedience N.E.2d 878, 879 Revenue Code). 31. N.Y. 27 (1913). ETHICS, NO. 82 (1927-28). 622 (S.D.N.Y. 1882); (IND. 1847). Accord, In re Dill, 32 Kan. 668, 5 P. 39 (1884)(Because client forfeit client could Conley v. United States, 59 F.2d 929, 936 (8th Cir. 1932)("With- is allowed attorney in bona fide no such relationship . . . in failing same immunity third party find liability There is difference between ney deliberately and acting theroeon by an attorney order.40 order did not require could be is granted rule. Before for violation court order, order must so clearly there has vio- lati~n.'~ order are whether or particular action in criminal acti~n."'~ is said the party and consistent with party cannot be found ~ontempt.'~ In Sunbeam Corp. v. Ross- Simons, I~C.'~ Rhode Island Providence, Rhode Island, and not the cut-rate find liabil- only enjoined Id. N.Y.S. at Landau, 230 A.D. Balt, 34 A.D.2d 932, 312 N.Y.S.2d 587 (1970). 43. Id. at 933, 312 N.Y.S.2d at 589. 44. See Ensch v. Ensch, 157 Kan. 107, 138 P.2d 491 (1943). 45. 134 A.2d 160 (R.I. 1957). such order, ordered by u. M~yers,~' decision finding Michael Maness guilty for advising on fifth rcmedy is to appeal.6a different situation during trial a witness counsels compliance even though order inva- later determined on bell."69 harm has already been done; nothing can words which never have been spoken in Maness therefore upheld cohpliance and later mend disobedience the attorney Attorneys in criminal te~timony.~" The Maness holding that good faith advice to disobey a court order will not result in contempt if the attorney is later proved correct, has been extended in People ex re2. Kunce u. Hogad6 that the his advice later turned provide their clients." the contempt of an 51. 419 Ill. App. 3d 673, 346 N.E.2d 456 (1976), modified, 67 Ill. 55, 364 N.E.2d 50 (1977), cert. denied, -, 346 N.E.2d at 464. Legal Profession issued by parties litigant in imposition sanction.e8 is beyond cannot result a consequence, be held advises disobedience court, or by a parties.e6 be manifest this fact c~ntempt."~ Recall from merely erroneous, advising noncompliance still result contempt.e7 decision in v. Nathanse8 without jurisdic- contempt.eg is not Annot., 12 A.L.R.2d 1067 (1950) a wealth cases on numerous to cite here. 64. See Sinquefield v. Valentine, 160 Miss. 61, 133 So. 210 (1931). 65. See Lewis v. Peck, 154 F. 273 (7th Cir. 1907); Court Rose No. 12, Forest- ers of America v. Coma, 279 Ill. 605, 117 N.E. 144; McHenry v. State, 91 Miss. 562, 44 So. 831 (1907). 66. Simon Piano Co. v. Fairfield, 103 Wash. 206, 174 P. 457 (1918). 67. E.g., FTC, 128 F.2d But see 315, 190 (1920)(Duty clients (here, jurisdiction or -, 27 S.E. at 53.