The State Bar Association of North Dakota Winter 2013 Gavel Magazine | Page 29

NOTICE OF DISCIPLINE OF ATTORNEY Disciplinary Board of the Supreme Court of the State of North Dakota, Petitioner v. Blake D. Hankey, Respondent No. 20120304 The Court had before it Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law, and Recommendations by the Hearing Panel of the Disciplinary Board recommending Blake D. Hankey be reprimanded for violations of the North Dakota Rules of Professional Conduct. Hankey undertook dual representation of an alleged perpetrator and alleged victim of crimes. When communicating with the Assistant State’s attorney regarding the alleged perpetrator’s case, Hankey did not inform her that he also represented the alleged victim. When she learned of the dual representation, she confronted Hankey about what she perceived was a conflict of interest. Hankey falsely told her that he had cleared any conflict with his law partners. Hankey also had the clients execute a waiver of the conflict of interest. A Hearing Panel was appointed, and the matter was scheduled for a hearing. The Hearing Panel made findings of fact, conclusions of law, and recommendations, which were forwarded to the Court. The Hearing Panel found that Hankey’s conduct violated N.D.R. Prof. Conduct 1.7(a), in that Hankey represented one client whose interests were unescapably adverse to the another client because they were alleged perpetrator and alleged victim of crimes and he because took steps that were adverse to each of the respective clients in violation of N.D.R. Prof. Conduct 1.7(a). The Panel found that Hankey did not violate N.D.R. Lawyer Discipl. 1.2A(3) and N.D.R. Prof. Conduct 8.4(c), because his admittedly false statement that he had cleared the conflict of interest with his partners did not affect the analysis, because Hankey’s partners could not waive the conflict. The Panel also found that Hankey did not have an ethical duty to disclose the victim’s status as a client prior to being asked about it by the Assistant State’s Attorney. Objections to the Findings, Conclusions, and Recommendation were due within 20 days of service of the report. No objections were received, and the matter was submitted to the Court for consideration. The Court accepted the findings of fact, conclusions of law, and recommendations of the Hearing Panel, except that the Court concluded that Hankey violated both N.D.R. Prof. Conduct 1.7(a) and N.D.R.Prof. Conduct 8.4(c). The Court ordered that Hankey be reprimanded and pay costs of the costs of the disciplinary proceeding. cont. from page 13 Misleading Law Firm Internet Domain Names Can Violate Ethics Rules 3 State Bar Association of North Dakota Ethics Comm. Op. 99-02 (citation omitted), available at http://www.sband.org/userfiles/files/pdfs/ ethics/99-02.pdf. 4 Id. at 2. 5 Id. See also N.D.R. Prof. Conduct 7.1.6 N.D.R. Prof. Conduct 7.1 cmt. 4. 7 N.D.R. Prof. Conduct 7.5(a). 8 N.D.R. Prof. Conduct 7.5 cmt. 1. 9 State Bar of Arizona Ethics Op. 01-05. 10 Id. at 5. 11 State Bar of Arizona Ethics Op. 11-04 at 2 (italics original), available at http://www.azbar.org/Ethics/EthicsOpinions/ ViewEthicsOpinion?id=717. The Gavel February 2013 27