Leak To Media Draws Proposed Consent Suspension
A District of Columbia Hearbing Committee has approved a petition for negotiated discipline recommending an 18-month suspension of an attorney for admitted violations of the duty of confidentiality and dishonesty.
The attorney had been assigned by an unnamed law firm to conduct a “confidential investigation of conduct by [an unnamed] Company’s employees.”
Stipulated
In October 2018, Ms. Diercks initiated contact with a reporter for “News Media.” She began to furnish the reporter with confidential information developed in the investigation.
Shortly thereafter, News Media published a detailed account of Law Firm’s investigation, including information from confidential work product that Ms. Diercks had disclosed. Reporters from News Media began to approach some of the witnesses for interviews.
Law Firm conducted an internal investigation of the source of the leaks to News Media, employing its own lawyers as well as outside counsel and forensic investigators.
The investigators interviewed Ms. Diercks. She falsely denied that she had been in contact with any reporters for News Media. Based on its assessment of Ms. Diercks’s interview responses, Law Firm suspended her and took custody of her firm laptop and desk top computers. Law Firm also took custody of Ms. Diercks’s personal cell phone, but she would not permit the contents of her cell phone to be examined.
Law Firm interviewed Ms. Diercks a second time. She continued to falsely deny any knowledge of the leaks to reporters for News Media. She also refused permission for Law Firm to examine the contents of her cell phone.
Law Firm interviewed Ms. Diercks for a third time. Although she continued to falsely deny knowledge of who had leaked materials to reporters for News Media, she did grant Law Firm permission to examine the contents of her cell phone.
The examination of the cell phone confirmed the conduct and resulted in her resignation from the law firm.
Aggravation of sanction
By leaking information to News Media, Respondent deprived her client of the opportunity to make that decision and brought about unfavorable publicity that Company was hoping to avoid. In addition, Law Firm spent substantial resources, including the engagement of outside counsel and forensic investigators, that cost it $1 million in fees.
Mitigation
Respondent has provided the following circumstances in mitigation, which the Hearing Committee has taken into consideration: Respondent is remorseful. She met with and candidly admitted her misconduct to Disciplinary Counsel shortly after Disciplinary Counsel began its investigation, and further admitted her misconduct in these proceedings. Respondent is also a new lawyer who was caught up in an exciting investigation of enormous public interest who succumbed to the temptation to talk to a reporter.
The attorney must prove fitness for reinstatement. (Mike Frisch)