Through the Looking Glass in Indiana: Mandatory Reporting of Child Abuse and the Duty of Confidentiality

IF 1 3区 社会学 Q2 LAW Notre Dame Law Review Pub Date : 2016-04-26 DOI:10.2139/ssrn.2770884
A. Bernabé
{"title":"Through the Looking Glass in Indiana: Mandatory Reporting of Child Abuse and the Duty of Confidentiality","authors":"A. Bernabé","doi":"10.2139/ssrn.2770884","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"It is often said that the duty of confidentiality is the most important of all the fiduciary duties attorneys owe their clients. This is so because without confidentiality, clients would presumably not feel free to seek legal representation, or, at least, would not be fully open to speak out with their lawyers. Yet, the duty of confidentiality can be affected by special statutes that impose the opposite duty: a duty to disclose information under certain circumstances. Most common among this type of statutes are state statutes that mandate disclosure of information related to child abuse. As one might expect, therefore, there may be circumstances in which a lawyer may find a conflict between the duty to keep information secret and a duty to disclose it. Last fall, the Legal Ethics Committee of the Indiana State Bar Association issued an opinion addressing this very question. It concludes that under Indiana law, absent client consent, an attorney may not report information about suspected child abuse learned during the representation of the client unless the lawyer believes disclosing the information is necessary to prevent reasonably certain death or substantial bodily harm. In reaching this conclusion, however, the Committee disregards the text of the applicable rule of professional conduct and does not consider the possible scenarios that can result from the interpretation of the mandatory disclosure statute, the doctrine of the attorney-client privilege and the rules of professional conduct. In an effort to clarify the confusion created by the opinion, this essay explains the issue presented by the opinion, and suggests the analysis needed for its proper resolution according to the applicable rules of professional conduct.","PeriodicalId":47176,"journal":{"name":"Notre Dame Law Review","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":1.0000,"publicationDate":"2016-04-26","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"1","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Notre Dame Law Review","FirstCategoryId":"90","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.2770884","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"LAW","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 1

Abstract

It is often said that the duty of confidentiality is the most important of all the fiduciary duties attorneys owe their clients. This is so because without confidentiality, clients would presumably not feel free to seek legal representation, or, at least, would not be fully open to speak out with their lawyers. Yet, the duty of confidentiality can be affected by special statutes that impose the opposite duty: a duty to disclose information under certain circumstances. Most common among this type of statutes are state statutes that mandate disclosure of information related to child abuse. As one might expect, therefore, there may be circumstances in which a lawyer may find a conflict between the duty to keep information secret and a duty to disclose it. Last fall, the Legal Ethics Committee of the Indiana State Bar Association issued an opinion addressing this very question. It concludes that under Indiana law, absent client consent, an attorney may not report information about suspected child abuse learned during the representation of the client unless the lawyer believes disclosing the information is necessary to prevent reasonably certain death or substantial bodily harm. In reaching this conclusion, however, the Committee disregards the text of the applicable rule of professional conduct and does not consider the possible scenarios that can result from the interpretation of the mandatory disclosure statute, the doctrine of the attorney-client privilege and the rules of professional conduct. In an effort to clarify the confusion created by the opinion, this essay explains the issue presented by the opinion, and suggests the analysis needed for its proper resolution according to the applicable rules of professional conduct.
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
印第安纳州的镜中奇遇:虐待儿童的强制报告和保密义务
人们常说,保密义务是律师对客户负有的最重要的受托义务。之所以如此,是因为如果不保密,客户可能不会自由地寻求法律代理,或者至少不会完全公开地与他们的律师交谈。然而,保密义务可能受到特殊法规的影响,这些法规规定了相反的义务:在某些情况下披露信息的义务。这类法规中最常见的是强制披露与虐待儿童有关的信息的州法规。因此,正如人们所预料的那样,在某些情况下,律师可能会发现保密信息的义务与披露信息的义务之间存在冲突。去年秋天,印第安纳州律师协会的法律道德委员会就这个问题发表了一份意见。它的结论是,根据印第安纳州法律,未经当事人同意,律师不得报告在代理当事人期间了解到的有关涉嫌虐待儿童的信息,除非律师认为披露这些信息对于防止合理确定的死亡或实质性身体伤害是必要的。但是,在作出这一结论时,委员会无视适用的专业行为规则的案文,也没有考虑到对强制性披露规约、律师-委托人特权原则和专业行为规则的解释可能导致的各种情况。为了澄清该意见所造成的混乱,本文解释了该意见所提出的问题,并建议根据适用的职业行为规则适当解决该问题所需的分析。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
1.20
自引率
11.10%
发文量
0
期刊介绍: In 1925, a group of eager and idealistic students founded the Notre Dame Lawyer. Its name was changed in 1982 to the Notre Dame Law Review, but all generations have remained committed to the original founders’ vision of a law review “synonymous with respect for law, and jealous of any unjust attacks upon it.” Today, the Law Review maintains its tradition of excellence, and its membership includes some of the most able and distinguished judges, professors, and practitioners in the country. Entirely student edited, the Law Review offers its members an invaluable occasion for training in precise analysis of legal problems and in clear and cogent presentation of legal issues.
期刊最新文献
Préface Does Docket Size Matter? Revisiting Empirical Accounts of the Supreme Court's Incredibly Shrinking Docket Prior Art in the District Court Acknowledgments The Juggler of Notre Dame and the Medievalizing of Modernity. Volume 6: War and Peace, Sex and Violence
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1