From our private database of 37,200+ case briefs...
In re Sexson
Indiana Supreme Court
613 N.E.2d 841 (1993)
Facts
Attorney David Sexson (defendant) maintained an office at the same location as attorney Rollin Thompson and four other attorneys. The attorneys all shared office space, a secretary, and three telephone lines; used a common letterhead; and left their individual offices unlocked and the doors open. The file cabinets of all attorneys were visible from a common hallway, and conversations in individual offices could be heard in the hallway. Thompson was retained to file a personal-injury claim on behalf of Mr. and Mrs. Zimmerman. Mr. Zimmerman subsequently filed an action for dissolution of marriage. Mrs. Zimmerman retained Sexson to represent her in the dissolution proceeding. After Thompson settled the Zimmermans’ personal-injury case, Sexson obtained on behalf of Mrs. Zimmerman an ex parte order restraining Mr. Zimmerman from negotiating his settlement check. Mr. Zimmerman arranged with Thompson to pick up his settlement check at Thompson’s office and was met by Sexson and served with the restraining order. Sexson was charged with engaging in representation of a client that was directly adverse to the interests of another client in violation of the Indiana Rules of Professional Conduct for Attorneys at Law (RPCs) 1.7(a) and 1.10(a).
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning (Per curiam)
What to do next…
Here's why 631,000 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.