## Facts

- Peter Spedevick was arrested for speeding and littering while his driver’s license was revoked; he threw items from his car during pursuit.
- Peter falsely identified himself to police and the court as his brother, Ben Spedevick, and continued using that identity through arraignment and a pretrial hearing where he pled guilty and was fined.
- Attorney Camelia J. Casby had previously represented Peter, knew of his license revocation, and recognized his voice when he called her from jail on the night of arrest.
- Casby went to the jail and signed a release-on-recognizance form identifying the accused as “Benjamin Joseph Spedevick”; Peter signed the same form using Ben’s name.
- After the arraignment, Casby contacted the county attorney’s office regarding the “Ben Spedevick” matter and negotiated a plea disposition; she later sent a letter summarizing the agreement without correcting the identity.
- Peter used the negotiated agreement while continuing to appear as “Ben,” without Casby physically appearing in court.
- Weeks later, the real Ben reported the deception, and the county attorney informed Casby that Ben had appeared in his office.
- Casby was charged with misdemeanor attorney misconduct under Minn. Stat. § 481.071 for deceit or consenting to deceit with intent to deceive the court or a party; after a bench trial she was convicted on one count, and reviewing courts affirmed.

## Issues

1. Whether the evidence was sufficient to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that Casby knew of the false identity and assisted or consented to the deception in violation of Minn. Stat. § 481.071.
2. Whether attorney-client privilege barred disclosure of the client’s true identity and therefore negated criminal liability for not correcting the misidentification.
3. Whether Minn. Stat. § 481.071 reaches an attorney’s consent to, or assistance in, a client’s ongoing identity fraud in court proceedings.

## Decision

- The Minnesota Supreme Court affirmed the misdemeanor conviction.
- The evidence, viewed in the light most favorable to the verdict, permitted a reasonable fact-finder to conclude Casby knew of the false identity and at least consented to or assisted the ongoing deception.
- Attorney-client privilege did not shield the client’s true identity in these circumstances and did not justify participating in or acquiescing to a continuing fraud on the court.
- Minn. Stat. § 481.071 encompasses not only direct deceit by an attorney but also consenting to deceit with intent to mislead the court or a party.

## Legal Principles

- Appellate review of evidentiary sufficiency considers the record in the light most favorable to the verdict; a conviction stands if a fact-finder could reasonably find guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.
- Attorney-client privilege generally does not protect a client’s identity when disclosure is necessary to the administration of justice.
- The privilege does not protect communications or conduct used to perpetrate or continue a fraud; it cannot be invoked to justify lawyer participation in deception of the court.
- Under Minn. Stat. § 481.071, an attorney may be criminally liable for deceit, collusion, or consenting to deceit, with intent to deceive the court or a party; initiating the fraud is not required where knowing consent or assistance is proven.

## Conclusion

The court upheld Casby’s conviction because the circumstantial evidence supported a finding that she knowingly permitted and furthered her client’s use of a false identity in active proceedings, and neither attorney-client privilege nor a narrow reading of the misconduct statute excused an attorney’s consent to an ongoing fraud on the court.


State v. Casby, 348 N.W.2d 736 (Minn. 1984)