[Return to home page.]

-------- Original Message --------
Subject: RE: The Ruling in my Disciplinary Case.
Date: Sat, 19 Apr 2003 09:22:10 -0500
From: "Hosmer, LaRue" <lhosmer@cba.ua.edu>
To: "Doug Schafer" <schafer@pobox.com>

Doug Schafer:

I am sorry.  I feel that the action you took years ago was both courageous and proper.  

     LaRue Hosmer

[See Prof. Hosmer's bio at http://www.cba.ua.edu/personnel/LarueHosmer.html]

[Ethics Professor Hosmer wrote, jointly with U. of Alabama Law School Prof. Dan Powell, a journal article about Doug Schafer's disciplinary case that was published in the Loyola Law Review:

Hosmer, LaRue T. and Daniel C. Powell, Schafer's Dilemma: Client Confidentiality vs. Judicial Integrity -- A Very Different Proposal for the Revision of Model Rule 1.6, 49 Loyola L. Rev. 405-469 (2003). [Lexis]|[Westlaw] ]

At page 456, the professors shared Schafer's view that judicial integrity must trump client confidentiality, saying:

"We started this discussion of the proper nature and extent of the professional provisions governing client confidentiality by recounting the dilemma faced by Douglas Schafer.  We wanted to describe a set of circumstances we believe most practicing attorneys and legal scholars would agree warrant full disclosure.  It is hard, after all, to argue that an attorney who exploited an estate for which he was professionally responsible and, subsequently, during his period of service as judge, received regular monthly checks from one of the other beneficiaries to repay the loan on a luxury automobile he owned, should not be removed from the bench.  It is particularly hard to argue that this judge should not be removed from the bench because of fears that revealing confidential client information gained from the individual actually making the bribery payments in some way imperils the adversarial practice of the law as a means of resolving disputes.  The argument that the adversarial practice of law benefits the full society is certainly sustainable, but the adversarial practice requires for its foundation, absolute judicial integrity. In short, this was a conflict between client confidentiality and judicial integrity.  We believe that there can be only one resolution to this conflict, in favor of judicial integrity ...."