1. Copyright 2007 Thomson Delmar Learning. All Rights Reserved. In re Disciplinary Proceeding Against SCHAFER Supreme Court of Washington, 149 Wash.2d 148, 66 P.3d 1036 (2003) Case Brief

2. Copyright 2007 Thomson Delmar Learning. All Rights Reserved. In re SCHAFER PURPOSE: An attorney may be disciplined for revealing client confidential information even where the disclosure leads to removing a corrupt judge from the bench.

3. Copyright 2007 Thomson Delmar Learning. All Rights Reserved. In re SCHAFER CAUSE OF ACTION: Disciplinary action against an attorney.

4. Copyright 2007 Thomson Delmar Learning. All Rights Reserved. In re SCHAFER FACTS: Schafer represented Hamilton, who was buying property from attorney Anderson, about to become a judge. Hamilton disclosed in confidence that Anderson had improperly handled the property on behalf of a client. Later as a judge, Anderson ruled against Schafer in a case. Schafer gathered information about Andersons improper actions. When Hamilton discovered Schafers intent to disclose information that had been learned in confidence, Hamilton terminated the attorney/client relationship. Schafer disclosed the confidential information to authorities and newspapers. Hamilton filed a disciplinary action against Schafer. Anderson was removed from the bench as a result of the disclosures.

5. Copyright 2007 Thomson Delmar Learning. All Rights Reserved. In re SCHAFER ISSUE: Did Schafer violate the Washington attorney ethics rules that prohibit an attorney from disclosing confidential client information?

6. Copyright 2007 Thomson Delmar Learning. All Rights Reserved. In re SCHAFER HOLDING: Yes.

7. Copyright 2007 Thomson Delmar Learning. All Rights Reserved. In re SCHAFER REASONING: The court held Schafer be suspended for six months because he disclosed client confidential information. A harsher discipline was inappropriate because removal of a corrupt judge furthered the publics confidence in the legal system. The court found that Schafers motivation was selfish at least in part. Schafer waited three years before disclosing the information regarding Anderson, he disclosed the information to various authorities and newspapers rather than restricting disclosure to the disciplinary tribunal, and he could have achieved Andersons removal from the bench by limiting disclosure to nonconfidential information.