From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia In re Himmel
In re Himmel
In re Himmel Decision
The court held that Himmel had a duty to report the mis-
conduct of the first attorney under Rule 1-103(a), which
requires lawyers with knowledge of misconduct by an-
other lawyer to report it to the appropriate disciplinary
authority.[2] The court held that the client’s communica-
tion about the first attorney’s misconduct was not pro-
tected by the attorney-client privilege because she had
Seal of Illinois discussed the matter in the presence of non-privileged
Court Supreme Court of Illinois third parties (her mother and fiance).
The court upheld the decision of the IADRC to sus-
Full case In re James H. Himmel, Attorney pend Himmel’s license for one year.[3]
name
Date
decided
September 22, 1988
Impact
Citation(s) 533 N.E.2d 790 (Ill. 1988) Himmel greatly increased the frequency of attorney mis-
conduct reporting. In 1988, 154 attorneys were reported
Judge(s) John J. Stamos, Benjamin K. Miller, William G. for misconduct in Illinois. In 1989, one year after the de-
sitting Clark, Daniel P. Ward, Howard C. Ryan,
cision, 922 attorneys were reported for misconduct[4]
Thomas J. Moran
The Himmel rule has been criticized for being more ef-
Case opinions fective at fostering distrust among lawyers than at root-
Unanimous opinion by Stamos ing out misconduct.[5] In 1991, California declined to fol-
low the Himmel rule and adopted Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code
In re Himmel 533 N.E.2d 790 (Ill. 1988), was a case decided
Himmel, § 6068(o), which requires an attorney to self report mis-
by the Supreme Court of Illinois that upheld the suspen- conduct but not the misconduct of other attorneys.[6]
sion of an attorney’s license for failing to report miscon-
duct by another attorney. References
[1] In re Himmel, 533 N.E.2d 790, 791 (Ill. 1988)
Factual background [2] 107 Ill.2d R. 1-103(a)
Himmel, an attorney, agreed to represent the 18-year-old [3] In re Himmel, 533 N.E.2d 790, 794 (Ill. 1988)
victim of a motorcycle accident recover settlement mon- [4] Daryl van Duch. Best Snitches: Land of Lincoln Leads
ey from her first attorney. The client had won a $23,000 the Nation in Attorneys Turning in Their Peers. Natl.
settlement after the accident, but her first attorney had L.J., Jan. 27, 1997, at A1
allegedly pocketed the money instead. The client asked [5] Duch at A1
Himmel not to report the first lawyer’s misconduct to the [6] Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code § 6068(o)
Illinois Attorney Registration and Disciplinary Commis-
sion (IARDC) because she feared that it would hinder the External links
recovery efforts.
Over the course of 24 months, Himmel brokered an • Chapter 8 of the Illinois Code of Professional
agreement where the first attorney promised to pay Responsibility from the Legal Information Institute
$75,000 if the client agreed not to prosecute. at Cornell University Law School
In 1986, the IADRC charged Himmel with a violation
of Rule 1-103(a) of the Illinois Code of Professional Re-
sponsibility for failing to report the first attorney’s mis-
conduct.[1]
Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=In_re_Himmel&oldid=440895995"
1
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia In re Himmel
Categories:
• Legal ethics
• 1988 in United States case law
• Illinois law
• Illinois state case law
• 1988 in Illinois
This page was last modified on 22 July 2011 at 21:29. Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-
ShareAlike License; additional terms may apply. See Terms of use for details. Wikipedia® is a registered trademark of
the Wikimedia Foundation, Inc., a non-profit organization.Contact us
Privacy policy About Wikipedia Disclaimers
2