In re Diaz

Lieutenant Matthew Diaz (defendant) was licensed to practice law in Kansas and worked for the United States Navy as a judge advocate general. Diaz was assigned to Guantanamo Bay. The United States Supreme Court had recently issued an opinion holding that detainees at Guantanamo Bay had a right to file habeas corpus petitions. Diaz knew Barbara Olshansky had requested information about the identity of detainees who had not yet filed petitions and that she wanted the information to assist them. When Diaz was younger, his father had been convicted of murder and sentenced to death but survived due to the habeas corpus process. Diaz felt strongly that all detained individuals should have access to the process and struggled with the Navy’s position that it would not release the detainees’ names to Olshansky. Diaz knew he had options to ask the Navy to reconsider its position or seek guidance about his internal struggle. However, Diaz believed expressing his stance would harm his career, so he did not use these options. Instead, when no one was around, Diaz printed a classified list of detainees’ names, identification numbers, country of origin, and interrogation teams. Diaz cut the list into strips, placed them inside a Valentine’s Day card, and mailed the card to Olshansky. Olshansky turned the card over to authorities, who determined Diaz had sent it. Diaz was court-martialed and found guilty of four felony counts of improperly disclosing classified information. Diaz was dismissed from the Navy, served six months in confinement, and lost his certification to practice as a Navy attorney. By themselves, these convictions caused the temporary suspension of Diaz’s Kansas law license. The Kansas bar’s disciplinary administrator (plaintiff) then filed a complaint alleging Diaz had violated (1) Rule 1.6 of the professional-conduct rules by disclosing client confidential information and (2) Rule 8.4 by committing a criminal act reflecting adversely on his honesty, trustworthiness, or fitness as a lawyer. The authorities sought permanent disbarment. Diaz argued that suspension was more appropriate because he had intended to promote justice, not cause harm. A hearing panel found Diaz had violated both rules but recommended only a three-year suspension, with credit for the three years that had already passed. The Kansas Supreme Court reviewed the recommendation.