From our private database of 33,600+ case briefs...
An Unnamed Attorney v. Kentucky Bar Association
Kentucky Supreme Court
186 S.W.3d 741 (2006)
John and Jane Doe hired an attorney (defendant) to investigate the shooting death of Jane’s former husband. The Does told the attorney that neither of them was involved in the shooting and that they wanted to discover information to help prove their innocence. The attorney informed the Does that a conflict of interest might develop between them during the investigation that would force the attorney to withdraw from the joint representation. However, the attorney did not foresee that his duties of communication and loyalty to each of the Does might come into conflict. Thus, the attorney did not specifically inform the Does about these potential conflicts and what those conflicts would mean. Based on the information that the attorney did provide, the Does consented to the joint representation. During his investigation, the attorney discovered information indicating that one of the Does was the shooter. This created a conflict of interest. The attorney had a duty to the potentially guilty Doe to keep the information confidential from everyone, including the other Doe. However, the attorney also had a duty to provide that information to the nonguilty Doe to prove that Doe’s innocence. Faced with this conflict, the attorney informed the Does that he would release the information to them only if both Does consented. Both Does did not consent, and the attorney did not release the information to either of them. The attorney withdrew as counsel for the Does, and each Doe obtained new counsel. The Does complained to the bar (plaintiff) that the attorney had not adequately explained the potential for conflicts or the consequences of those potential conflicts when he asked them to consent to the joint representation. The attorney admitted that he had not provided that potential-conflict information to the Does and asked the Kentucky Supreme Court to sanction him with a private reprimand.
Rule of Law
Holding and Reasoning (Lambert, C.J.)
What to do next…
Unlock this case brief with a free (no-commitment) trial membership of Quimbee.
You’ll be in good company: Quimbee is one of the most widely used and trusted sites for law students, serving more than 603,000 law students since 2011. Some law schools—such as Yale, Berkeley, and Northwestern—even subscribe directly to Quimbee for all their law students.Unlock this case briefRead our student testimonials
Learn more about Quimbee’s unique (and proven) approach to achieving great grades at law school.
Quimbee is a company hell-bent on one thing: helping you get an “A” in every course you take in law school, so you can graduate at the top of your class and get a high-paying law job. We’re not just a study aid for law students; we’re the study aid for law students.Learn about our approachRead more about Quimbee
Here's why 603,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
- Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 33,600 briefs, keyed to 984 casebooks. Top-notch customer support.
- The right amount of information, includes the facts, issues, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents.
- Access in your classes, works on your mobile and tablet. Massive library of related video lessons and high quality multiple-choice questions.
- Easy to use, uniform format for every case brief. Written in plain English, not in legalese. Our briefs summarize and simplify; they don’t just repeat the court’s language.