## Facts

- Michael G. Riehlmann, a criminal defense lawyer and former assistant district attorney, learned in April 1994 from prosecutor Gerry Deegan that Deegan had intentionally suppressed exculpatory blood evidence in a criminal case.
- Riehlmann urged Deegan to correct the problem but did not report Deegan to disciplinary authorities at that time.
- Deegan died in July 1994 without taking corrective action.
- In 1999, as John Thompson faced execution for an armed-robbery conviction, defense counsel discovered a crime-lab report indicating the robber had Type “B” blood while Thompson had Type “O,” and that the report and related evidence had not been disclosed at trial.
- Riehlmann connected the newly discovered report to Deegan’s 1994 confession, executed an affidavit attesting to Deegan’s intentional suppression, and then reported Deegan’s misconduct to the Office of Disciplinary Counsel (ODC).
- The ODC charged Riehlmann with violating Rule 8.3(a) (failure to report another lawyer’s serious misconduct) and Rule 8.4(d) (conduct prejudicial to the administration of justice) based on the approximate five-year delay.
- The hearing committee found no Rule 8.3(a) violation but recommended a public reprimand for a Rule 8.4(d) violation; the disciplinary board found violations of both rules and recommended a six-month suspension.

## Issues

1. Whether Riehlmann’s knowledge of Deegan’s confessed suppression of exculpatory evidence triggered Rule 8.3(a) in 1994, requiring prompt reporting to disciplinary authorities.
2. Whether the multi-year delay constituted conduct prejudicial to the administration of justice under Rule 8.4(d).
3. What sanction was appropriate given the seriousness of the misconduct and the presence of mitigating and aggravating factors.

## Decision

- The Louisiana Supreme Court found Riehlmann violated Rule 8.3(a) by failing to promptly report Deegan’s admitted misconduct once he learned of it in 1994.
- The court also found a Rule 8.4(d) violation because the extended failure to report impeded timely correction of misconduct affecting the integrity of a criminal conviction and an impending execution.
- The court rejected the disciplinary board’s recommended six-month suspension and imposed a public reprimand.
- A dissent would have imposed a harsher sanction.

## Legal Principles

- Rule 8.3(a) is triggered when a lawyer has actual knowledge of another lawyer’s violation that raises a substantial question as to honesty, trustworthiness, or fitness; reporting is required without unreasonable delay.
- The duty to report does not depend on having complete case details or on the reporting lawyer’s subjective assessment of the misconduct’s severity.
- A prolonged failure to report serious misconduct connected to the validity of criminal convictions may constitute conduct prejudicial to the administration of justice under Rule 8.4(d).
- Sanctions in discipline cases must account for aggravating factors (including the gravity of the underlying misconduct and length of delay) and mitigating factors (including absence of prior discipline, lack of selfish motive, personal hardships, and later cooperation).

## Conclusion

The Louisiana Supreme Court held that an attorney who learns of an intentional suppression of exculpatory evidence must report it promptly under Rule 8.3(a), and that an extended delay can violate Rule 8.4(d); despite the seriousness of the context, substantial mitigation supported a public reprimand rather than suspension.


In re Riehlmann, 891 So. 2d 1239 (La. 2005)