## Facts

- William A. Goebel was a partner in an Indiana law firm and represented a criminal defendant.
- Another partner in the same firm represented a different client in a guardianship matter.
- The firm’s guardianship file contained returned mail showing the guardianship client’s address; the envelope was accessible within the firm.
- Goebel’s criminal client said he intended to find and kill the guardianship client and her husband; the husband was connected to the criminal case as a prosecution witness.
- The criminal client came to Goebel’s office and demanded the guardianship client’s address.
- Goebel showed the client the returned envelope marked “No Such Street,” and the client copied the address from it.
- Goebel later stated he feared the client, had been threatened, and showed the envelope to demonstrate he did not have a valid current address and to discourage violence.
- Two days later, the criminal client murdered the guardianship client’s husband.
- Goebel did not report the threats or the envelope incident to law enforcement before the murder.

## Issues

1. Whether Goebel violated Indiana Rule of Professional Conduct 1.6(a) by revealing information relating to the firm’s other client (the guardianship client) to his criminal client.
2. Whether, under the facts found, Goebel’s conduct fell within Rule 1.6(b)(1), permitting disclosure reasonably believed necessary to prevent a client from committing a criminal act.
3. Whether the Disciplinary Commission proved professional misconduct by clear and convincing evidence.

## Decision

- The Indiana Supreme Court, reviewing de novo with deference to the hearing officer’s witness-based findings, concluded the Commission did not prove a Rule 1.6(a) violation by clear and convincing evidence.
- The court accepted the hearing officer’s finding that Goebel showed the returned envelope to demonstrate the lack of a usable current address and in an effort to deter the threatened killings, not to assist the client.
- Because misconduct was not established under the governing standard, the disciplinary charge was not sustained.

## Legal Principles

- Rule 1.6(a) prohibits revealing information relating to representation absent client consent or an applicable exception.
- Rule 1.6(b)(1) permits disclosure to the extent a lawyer reasonably believes necessary to prevent a client from committing a criminal act.
- In attorney discipline proceedings, misconduct must be proven by clear and convincing evidence.
- In de novo disciplinary review, the court is the final decisionmaker on facts and conclusions but gives appropriate deference to a hearing officer’s findings based on direct observation of witnesses.
- Whether a disclosure violates Rule 1.6 may depend on context and purpose, including whether the lawyer reasonably believed the action was directed at preventing a crime rather than facilitating it.

## Conclusion

The court held that the Commission failed to prove by clear and convincing evidence that Goebel’s showing of a returned-envelope address constituted an unethical disclosure under Rule 1.6(a), crediting findings that his conduct was intended to deter threatened criminal acts and was within the scope of the crime-prevention exception.


In re Goebel, 703 N.E.2d 1045 (Ind. 1998)