U.S. v. Carona, ___ F.3d ___, 2011 WL 32581 (9th Cir. 2011)

Brief Summary

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit held that prosecutors did not violate the no-contact rule by using an undercover informant to gather information from a represented criminal suspect, even though the prosecutors armed the informant with false subpoenas designed to elicit incriminating information from the suspect.

Complete Summary

As part of an investigation into a sheriff’s alleged witness tampering, federal prosecutors surreptitiously recorded the sheriff’s conversation with an undercover informant who, by his own admission, had previously participated with the sheriff in unlawful activity. In order to elicit incriminating evidence during the conversation, the prosecutors armed the informant with fake subpoenas, which purported to demand records from the informant that would implicate the sheriff in unlawful activity. The U.S. District Court for the Central District of California held that the prosecutors violated Cal. R. Prof’l Conduct 2-100 (the “no-contact rule,” prohibiting communication with a represented party), but declined to grant the sheriff any remedy for the violation, instead leaving the matter in the hands of the state Bar, which thereafter took no action.

The Ninth Circuit held that the prosecutors’ conduct did not violate the no-contact rule. The court applied the “alter ego” test and noted that the no-contact rule generally does not preclude the use of undercover informants. The court then found that use of the false subpoena did not cause the informant to become any more of an alter ego than he already was (thereby agreeing with the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit and disagreeing with the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit on that point).

Turning to the policy concern behind the no-contact rule—namely, that the represented party will be tricked by the opposing lawyer’s artful examination—the Ninth Circuit found that that concern was not present in the case before the court because the sheriff was not subjected to any interrogation and had not talked directly to a prosecutor. Moreover, the court held that it would be a perversion of the no-contact rule to let a wrongdoer immunize himself to undercover investigations simply by retaining counsel.

Finally, the court held that even if the prosecutors violated the no-contact rule, exclusion of evidence was not an appropriate judicial remedy. The court noted that evidence has never been suppressed based solely on a violation of this ethics rule without an accompanying Sixth Amendment violation. Moreover, the court held that the potential for attorney discipline serves as an adequate deterrent of Rule 2-100 violations.

Significance of Opinion

This opinion makes clear that prosecutors’ use of an informant to contact the target of a criminal investigation who is represented by counsel is not a per se violation of the no-contact rule, at least not in the courts of the Ninth Circuit. State Bars, however, remain free to take a different view in the disciplinary context depending on the facts of the case. Moreover, unless there is a concomitant Sixth Amendment violation, exclusion of evidence obtained from the contact would not be a judicial remedy for a violation of the ethics rule.

This alert has been prepared by Hinshaw & Culbertson LLP to provide information on recent legal developments of interest to our readers. It is not intended to provide legal advice for a specific situation or to create an attorney-client relationship.

REGISTER NOW for the Tenth Annual Legal Malpractice & Risk Management Conference 

Attend the Tenth Anniversary of the industry's premier event focused on current and important developments in the law and litigation of malpractice claims, legal malpractice insurance and risk management strategies. Each Conference panel examines recent case law and significant developments throughout the last year. One and one-half days will be devoted to legal malpractice (February 16-17), and one and one-half days will be devoted to risk management (February 17-18). The Conference will be held in Chicago at The Westin Chicago River North.

Earn up to 15 hours of CLE credit, including up to 6.50 ethics credit!

Conference Topics

Legal Malpractice Sessions (February 16-17) 

• Settle and Sue: Is Legal Malpractice a Remedy for An Inappropriate Settlement or for the Settlement That Did Not Happen?
• What You Need to Know About Lawyers’ Liability Under the Federal and State Securities Laws
• Establishing a Fiduciary Breach
• Using Pretrial Remedies — Anti-SLAPP Statutes, and Other Evidentiary Early Disposition Motions
• Significant Developments in Litigating Legal Malpractice Claims
• Insurance Law
• Stump the Panel

Legal Malpractice/Risk Management Cross-Over Sessions (February 17)

• The Insurance Marketplace and Considerations
• Who is a “Partner” — The Legal Implications of Titles
• Mitigating or Avoiding the Loss

Risk Management Sessions (February 17-18)

• The General Counsel Forum
• Don’t Ignore the “Basics” — Engagement, Disengagement and End-of-Representation Letters
• The Growing Threats to Client (and Firm) Data — Managing Technology to Meet the Challenges
• High Tech Tools — and Traps — for Mergers and Lateral Hiring
• On the Horizon: Is Susskind Right? Technology and the Future of Large Law Firms

Registration Fees

$1,300 for the Entire Conference — February 16-18
$925 for the Legal Malpractice Sessions Only — February 16-17
$925 for the Risk Management Sessions Only — February 17-18

Discounts (maximum 15% discount per registration)

• Returning registrants receive 5% off the Conference price
• Multiple registrants receive 15% off when two or more colleagues from the same company register for the Conference 

For more information, please visit www.LMRM.com or click here to Register Now!

To speak with the Conference Planner, Katherine McCormack, please call 312-704-3329.