## Facts

- The Indiana Supreme Court reviewed two unrelated disciplinary complaints against an Indiana attorney whose identity was withheld.
- A hearing officer conducted an evidentiary hearing, found misconduct in both matters, and recommended a private reprimand.
- Both the Disciplinary Commission and the attorney sought review; the Commission challenged the sanction and the attorney challenged findings and conclusions.
- The Court reviewed the record de novo; misconduct had to be proven by clear and convincing evidence.
- In one matter, the attorney represented a company in labor-union grievance disputes in which a union trustee/financial secretary was a key witness.
- After the trustee was removed from union positions, he consulted with the attorney and the attorney’s firm about a wrongful-discharge claim against the union.
- The attorney met with the trustee multiple times, gave substantive legal advice, discussed a contingency-fee arrangement, assisted with a statement to union members, and the firm opened and maintained a client file containing the trustee’s communications and materials.
- The attorney later represented the company in litigation against the trustee and others arising from the same general events, placing the attorney in a position materially adverse to the trustee.
- In the second matter, the attorney represented a husband and also provided legal services to the husband’s wife in a related domestic/financial context without obtaining proper informed consent to the spouses’ direct adversity.

## Issues

1. Whether the attorney’s interactions with the trustee created an attorney–client relationship and, if so, whether later representing the company against the trustee in a substantially related matter violated Rule 1.9(a).
2. Whether representing opposing spouses in related domestic/financial matters without proper consent and safeguards violated Rule 1.7.
3. What discipline was appropriate for the misconduct proven.

## Decision

- The Court found clear and convincing evidence that the attorney committed the charged misconduct in both matters.
- The Court held an attorney–client relationship existed between the attorney and the trustee based on the parties’ conduct and the firm’s handling of the matter, despite the absence of a written fee agreement or billing.
- The Court held the attorney violated Rule 1.9(a) by later representing the company in a substantially related matter materially adverse to the trustee without consent.
- The Court held the attorney violated Rule 1.7 by undertaking representation involving directly adverse interests between spouses without satisfying the rule’s requirements.
- The Court imposed a private reprimand in each matter.

## Legal Principles

- In attorney discipline, the court reviews the record de novo, gives appropriate weight to a hearing officer’s observations, and requires proof by clear and convincing evidence.
- An attorney–client relationship may be implied from the parties’ conduct; it does not require a formal contract or billing, but does require mutual assent inferred from objective acts.
- Rule 1.9(a) prohibits representation materially adverse to a former client in the same or a substantially related matter unless the former client gives informed consent.
- Rule 1.7 prohibits representation involving direct adversity between current clients unless the rule’s conditions are met, including informed consent and the lawyer’s ability to provide competent and diligent representation to each affected client.

## Conclusion

The Indiana Supreme Court concluded that the attorney’s implied prior representation of the trustee barred later adverse representation in a substantially related matter and that the attorney also engaged in an impermissible concurrent conflict in representing opposing spouses; it therefore issued private reprimands for violations of Rules 1.9(a) and 1.7.


In re Anonymous, 655 N.E.2d 67 (Ind. 1995)