From our private database of 34,000+ case briefs...
In re Howes
New Mexico Supreme Court
940 P.2d 159 (1997)
Federal prosecutor G. Paul Howes worked in the District of Columbia and was prosecuting a murder charge against Darryl Smith. Smith was represented by a public defender. Without his attorney, Smith began making collect calls from jail directly to a detective and to Howes to talk about the pending case. Smith’s attorney learned about some of these calls and told Smith to stop calling. However, Smith continued to call without his attorney’s knowledge or involvement. Twice, Howes discussed Smith’s calls with his supervising attorneys. However, these consultations focused mostly on possible evidentiary and constitutional issues and not possible ethical constraints. Also, it was unclear whether the supervising attorneys realized that Smith was calling Howes and not just the detective. Consistent with the advice Howes received from his supervisors, Howes and the detective continued to accept Smith’s collect calls and listen while taking notes, but they never asked Smith questions. Howes did not notify Smith’s attorney about the continuing calls. Eventually, Smith’s attorney learned what had been happening and moved to have the charges against Smith dismissed on the basis of prosecutorial misconduct. The judge referred the matter to the District of Columbia’s professional-responsibility board, which then referred it to New Mexico, where Howes was licensed. The New Mexico disciplinary board found that Howes had violated the no-contact rule of professional conduct. Howes appealed the ruling, arguing that his conduct was ethical and that he was protected by the safe-harbor rule for subordinate attorneys who rely on ethical advice from supervising attorneys.
Rule of Law
Holding and Reasoning (Per curiam)
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 607,000 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 607,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
- Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 34,000 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.