## Facts

- Daniel James Stanford and John Kevin Stockstill were Louisiana attorneys who represented a father charged with multiple sex offenses, including the rape of his 16-year-old daughter (the victim).
- The victim initially cooperated with the prosecution but later indicated she did not want to pursue the charges.
- After learning of the victim’s change in position, Stockstill drafted a written “confidentiality agreement” between the father and the victim in connection with a meeting planned at the lawyers’ office.
- Before the meeting, Stanford presented the agreement to the unrepresented victim, who reviewed and signed it.
- Stanford did not explain the agreement to the victim and did not tell her she could have her own attorney review it.
- The agreement stated that communications during the meeting were “privileged and inadmissible in any legal proceeding,” that neither party could be compelled to testify about the meeting, and that a breaching party would be liable for costs, expenses, and fees caused by the breach.
- After signing the agreement and meeting with her father, the victim stopped cooperating with the prosecution.
- The victim later learned through her own attorney that the agreement did not actually prevent her from testifying about the meeting in the criminal case.
- The Office of Disciplinary Counsel (ODC) filed formal charges against Stanford and Stockstill, alleging violations of the Rules of Professional Conduct, including unlawfully obstructing (or causing another to obstruct) a party’s access to evidence.
- A hearing committee found rule violations and recommended a six-month suspension fully deferred; the disciplinary board recommended a two-year suspension with all but one year and one day deferred; both sides objected, and the Louisiana Supreme Court reviewed the matter.

## Issues

1. Whether drafting and obtaining a “confidentiality agreement” from an unrepresented 16-year-old victim-witness—stating that meeting communications were privileged, inadmissible, and not subject to compelled testimony—violated the Rules of Professional Conduct.
2. Whether the agreement and the lawyers’ conduct amounted to unlawful obstruction (or attempted obstruction) of the prosecution’s access to evidence and conduct prejudicial to the administration of justice.
3. What sanction was appropriate given the nature of the misconduct and the aggravating and mitigating factors found by the disciplinary bodies.

## Decision

- The Louisiana Supreme Court found that Stanford and Stockstill committed professional misconduct arising from the drafting, presentation, and use of the confidentiality agreement with the unrepresented victim-witness in the context of a pending criminal prosecution.
- The court determined that the agreement’s terms and the circumstances in which it was presented were inconsistent with lawyers’ duties of fairness in the evidentiary process and proper conduct toward unrepresented persons.
- The court rejected the attorneys’ attempt to characterize the agreement as limited to civil matters, focusing on the agreement’s broad language (“any legal proceeding”) and its likely impact on a reasonable witness in a criminal case.
- The court imposed a suspension from the practice of law (declining to leave the matter at a fully deferred suspension), setting discipline based on the seriousness of interfering with a victim-witness and the balance of aggravating and mitigating factors.

## Legal Principles

- A lawyer may not use an agreement or other mechanism that unlawfully obstructs, or is intended to obstruct, another party’s access to evidence, including witness testimony in a pending criminal case (Rule 3.4(a)).
- A lawyer dealing with an unrepresented person whose interests conflict with the lawyer’s client must clearly communicate the lawyer’s role and must not use the interaction to secure a waiver or commitment that disadvantages the unrepresented person without advising them to obtain counsel (Rule 4.3).
- Conduct that attempts to limit a victim-witness’s cooperation through threats of financial liability for disclosure, or by asserting false or overbroad claims of privilege and inadmissibility, may constitute misconduct and be prejudicial to the administration of justice (Rule 8.4).
- In attorney discipline, sanctions are determined by the duty violated, the lawyer’s mental state, and actual or potential harm, then adjusted for aggravating factors (such as substantial experience, refusal to acknowledge wrongdoing, and victim vulnerability) and mitigating factors (such as no prior discipline, lack of selfish motive, and cooperation).

## Conclusion

In re Stanford holds that criminal defense counsel commit serious professional misconduct when they procure a sweeping “confidentiality agreement” from an unrepresented minor victim-witness that purports to bar compelled testimony and makes disclosure financially risky, because such conduct interferes with access to evidence, violates duties toward unrepresented persons, and harms the administration of justice, warranting an actual suspension.


In re Stanford, 48 So. 3d 224 (2010)