From our private database of 37,200+ case briefs...
In re Discipline of Wilka
South Dakota Supreme Court
638 N.W.2d 245 (2001)
Lawyer Timothy Wilka (defendant) represented a client who risked losing visitation rights with his young daughter if the client was using any illegal drugs. To combat allegations that the client had been using methamphetamines, the client took a drug test. When Wilka received the test results from the hospital, the results showed that the client had not used methamphetamines but that he had recently used marijuana. Marijuana use was enough to jeopardize the client’s visitation rights. Wilka called the hospital and asked whether he could receive a form that showed only the results of the methamphetamine test. The hospital employee tore off the bottom the form, which was the part listing the marijuana results, and sent the partial form to Wilka. Wilka then submitted the partial form to the court as evidence that the client had not used methamphetamines. However, the other side’s attorney was familiar with the hospital’s form and recognized that this was not a complete copy. Also, the ragged bottom made the court suspicious that the form was not complete. The court asked Wilka multiple times whether something was missing from the form. Each time, Wilka provided accurate but evasive and misleading responses to the effect that the form was what he had received from the hospital. The court ordered Wilka to provide a certified copy of the results. Wilka later provided a full copy and apologized to the court for his behavior. Wilka was criminally charged for his behavior but was eventually found guilty of civil contempt and fined $100. The Disciplinary Board of the State Bar of South Dakota (plaintiff) also charged Wilka with professional misconduct for breaching his duty of candor to the court and recommended a public reprimand. However, the referee recommended only a private reprimand because Wilka had not provided any false information. Wilka had a history of complaints about his professional conduct and some prior discipline.
Rule of Law
Holding and Reasoning (Gilbertson, 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 629,000 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 629,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
- Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 37,200 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.