In re Thonert
Indiana Supreme Court
733 N.E.2d 932 (2000)
- Written by Rose VanHofwegen, JD
Facts
Attorney Richard Thonert represented a client who pleaded guilty to driving under the influence (DUI), then tried unsuccessfully to withdraw his plea. Thonert appealed up to the Indiana Supreme Court but did not prevail. A year later, Thonert represented a second client who tried to withdraw a guilty plea to DUI. Thonert did not tell the client that Thonert had just lost an appeal raising the same issues. Again the trial court refused to allow the plea withdrawal, and Thonert appealed to the appellate court—without citing the Indiana Supreme Court’s previous decision or arguing that it should not control. Opposing counsel likewise failed to raise the precedential decision. The state disciplinary board charged Thonert with violating the ethical rule that requires an attorney to disclose adverse controlling authority known to the attorney unless disclosed by opposing counsel. The parties agreed that public reprimand would be an appropriate sanction.
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning (Per curiam)
What to do next…
Here's why 832,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
- Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 46,500 briefs, keyed to 994 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.
