Chapter 9
The Umbrella Duty of Integrity
Chapter Hypothetical: This was taken from In re Riehlmann. It is discussed in Critical
Thinking exercise #1 at the end of the chapter. The case is available to you on the publisher’s
website. It is about 14 pages long but interesting so you might want to use it for in-class reading
and discussion.
Lesson Objective: Is there a duty to report the misconduct of others? (pg. 265)
Lecture Suggestion: There is a DC Bar opinion on the website for you to discuss with your
students. It is an opinion regarding reporting the misdeeds of a superior. The facts are about a
temporary employee and continuing duty to report after leaving the firm. Nevertheless, it’s an
Video Alert: Video Segment # 22 (Zealous Representation: Handling Evidence) asks the
question: What is the paralegal’s duty if the lawyer decides to destroy pivotal evidence? The rule
(8.3) is that they have a duty to “report to the appropriate authorities” conduct that they know
about that raises substantial questions about the lawyer’s honesty and integrity. Destruction of
Lesson Objective: Do I have to report my own misconduct? (pg. 269)
Lecture Suggestion: Only in California is there a code section that says lawyers have to report
their own misdeeds. However, it is worth a classroom discussion: If I do something wrong (like
accidentally destroy evidence) should I report myself?
Lesson Objective: Can I just threaten to report misconduct? (pg. 270)
Lesson Objective: How do these reporting rules apply to the paralegal?
Lecture Suggestion: I still don’t see any rule that says paralegals have a duty to report.
HOWEVER, we did read a case at the end of Chapter 7 where the judge said that Paralegal
Lesson Objective: Who are the appropriate authorities? (pg. 271)
Lecture Suggestion: Although our Pennsylvania case suggests that the client is not the person
Lesson Objective: Is there a duty to make the law better? (pg. 272)
Lecture Suggestion: This may be a bit far fetched for your students but it is a good way to finish
Lesson Objective: General Misconduct (pg. 273)
Lecture Suggestion: 2008 Benjamin Harrison (Illinois) Inappropriate behavior in court. Saying
something mean and untrue about the judge.
2002 Marvin Gerstein (Illinois) offensive language used in letters to opposing counsel and using
You can google “prejudicial to the administration of justice” in your state.
Answers to End of Chapter 9 Review Questions
Critical Thinking
1. The information George gives to Marco is neither attorney/client privileged nor
confidential because George and Marco are friends, not client/attorney. What is Marco’s
Assignments
1. Answers will vary.
2. Trust fund violations will probably be #1.
Collaborative Assignments
1. Beachball, microscope, clipboard or puppy. Which are you? It is fun to do this exercise
Review Questions
1. The duty of integrity is about moral and ethical principles — honesty. It serves the
purpose of inspiring public trust. If the public doesn’t trust that members of the legal
2. Most states are 8.3 states, but the duty applies to different types of wrongdoing.
California is a self-reporting state.
4. This is a logic problem. If facts exist for reporting a lawyer, then the duty is to report the
lawyer (not the paralegal’s duty….just a lawyer’s duty.) Threatening is not the
5. I do not believe that reporting outside of the work environment is a duty for the paralegal.
6. The appropriate authority for reporting changes with the wrong. Something like cheating
on timesheets could be reported to an immediate supervisor. Sexual harassment should
7. The law should be made better because the legal professions job is to protect the public.
8. Prejudicial to the administration of justice is the umbrella term used. The case of lawyers
9. How can each of us protect the public trust? Dealing truthfully with our clients and other
Cases for Consideration
Case #1: In re Landry
This silly lawyer took his client’s (Walter’s) word for it when he said his deceased wife (Patsy)
did not leave a will. He also said that there were no witnesses to the fact that Patsy died without
a will. Walter wants to refinance the house so he needs to have the house solely in his name. So,
Landry has Walter sign an affidavit that Patsy died intestate and he (Landry) notarizes it. Then
he has two secretaries in his office sign an affidavit with the same information in it and they
know this because they are “well acquainted” with Walter! Landry notarizes that one, too. These
affidavits were filed with the court.
Question 1: We (you and I and the ODC) are trying to get the students to see the difference
Question 2: The ODC thought that was a “weenie” recommendation so it appealed to the
Disciplinary Board.
[Unfortunately, that rule exceeded the ABA’s word limitation for the text so I’ll give it to you
here:
(1) make a false statement of fact or law to a tribunal or fail to correct a false statement of
material fact or law previously made to the tribunal by the lawyer]
The Disciplinary Board found some mitigating factors including the earlier ones and adding
Landry’s timely attempt to set things right. Following case law of the jurisdiction, this Board
There were three members who dissented. They had a different “baseline sanction” (and they
quoted the case they were basing that on) and they recommended suspension from the practice of
law for 6 months with all but 30 days deferred.
The ODC was still not satisfied so it brought this action to the State Supreme Court, which is
happy to tell us that they have original jurisdiction over disciplinary matters. This Court
differentiates between Landry notarizing Walter’s affidavit and his actions creating and having
Question 3: Answers will vary. If Landry recognized his error and paid to make Michael and
In the News
Identity Theft – Funding for a full time paralegal to help victims.
There are no questions that go along with this article. I just thought it was cool that the AG’s
office in Maryland made the position one for a paralegal instead of a lawyer. Do you think
“helping victims” will constitute UPL?
Video Case Study
This video is such a crack-up! The filing clerk is standing right there and he knows that Dante is
