Quimbee logo
DMCA.com Protection Status
  • I
  • In the Matter of AnonymousIn the Matter of Anonymous
From our private database of 16,800+ case briefs...

In the Matter of Anonymous

Supreme Court of Indiana
655 N.E. 2d 67 (1995)


An attorney (Anonymous) (defendant) worked at a law firm that was retained by a company to defend the company against grievances filed by a labor union. The union alleged that the company failed to contribute funds required by a collective-bargaining agreement. The company retained Anonymous to represent it in grievance proceedings. The company and the union agreed that the union trustee and financial secretary of the union were key witnesses. The union trustee was later discharged, because the union believed he provided information adverse to the union’s position in the grievance proceedings. The trustee met with an attorney at Anonymous’s firm to discuss a potential wrongful-discharge suit against the union. The firm directed the case to Anonymous, who specialized in labor cases. Anonymous met with the trustee, discussed the grievance proceedings, the trustee’s termination, and the possibility of suing the union for wrongful termination. The firm opened a case file for the trustee. Anonymous met with the trustee two more times and discussed a potential contingency-fee arrangement with him. Anonymous advised the trustee that he had a strong case. The trustee wrote at least five letters to Anonymous, and the letters were maintained in the trustee’s client file at the firm. Anonymous and the trustee never entered into a formal attorney-client agreement. Anonymous later filed suit on behalf of the company against the trustee and others. In a disciplinary hearing alleging that Anonymous violated conflict-of_interest rules by representing multiple clients in the same matter without consent, the hearing officer found that Anonymous and the trustee formed an attorney-client relationship and that Anonymous violated the conflict-of-interest rules. The hearing officer recommended a private reprimand for Anonymous. Both parties appealed.

Rule of Law


Holding and Reasoning (Per Curiam)

What to do next…

  1. 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 449,000 law students since 2011. Some law schools—such as Yale, Vanderbilt, Berkeley, and the University of Illinois—even subscribe directly to Quimbee for all their law students. Read our student testimonials.

  2. 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. Read more about Quimbee.

Here's why 449,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:

  • Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 16,800 briefs, keyed to 224 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.

Questions & Answers

Have a question about this case?

Sign up for a free 7-day trial and ask it

Sign up for a FREE 7-day trial