Facebook Evidence in Litigation Proceedings

In the middle of October, the Connecticut Supreme Court heard oral arguments from counsel regarding facebook photographs that were allowed as evidence. The arguments centered on the fact that these photographs should not have been introduced as evidence and, the fact that they were admitted actually violated the defendant’s constitutional rights.

The controversy began in 2004 when Alia Altajir, granddaughter of an Arab billionaire, was driving while intoxicated when she crashed and killed her best friend. Altajir was charged with manslaughter and in 2007 agreed to plea bargain to a lesser charge. However, after she was released from prison, Altajir admitted to violating her court ordered probation.

During her 2009 sentencing hearing in Litchfield Superior Court, photographs which were posted on Altajir’s facebook page were introduced. After the judge reviewed the photos, he commented that it did not appear that Altajir had any remorse after what happened. The prosecutor argued that the photos demonstrated that even after serving her jail sentence, she was not changing her lifestyle. Altajir’s attorney stated that he had advised his client to take down her facebook page, but she declined. He also argued that the photographs did not contain dates which made it impossible to determine whether the photographs were taken during Altajir’s probation.

Both attorneys admitted that this case could set new standards for when and how facebook photographs can be used in court hearings and trials. While this case addresses how social media websites can be used in a criminal case, it is obvious that it is opening the floodgates to how social media can be used in any type of litigation proceeding.

Can the Attorney-Client Privilege Be Waived?

As discussed in last week’s blog entry, attorney-client privilege is more complex than most clients realize. One of the purposes of attorney-client privilege is to help the client speak openly and honestly to their attorney without having to worry about whether the information will go beyond the four walls of the attorney’s office.

Clients can waive this privilege, either by putting it in writing or thought their actions. If a court determines that steps were not taken to make sure the information was held in confidentiality, the court may determine that the client waived his right to exercise the privilege. The attorney-client relationship works best when the client is able to speak openly and honestly with his attorney. If you are worried that your actions may have caused you to waive attorney-client privilege, the best thing to do is ask your attorney.

Where Does the Attorney-Client Privilege End?

One thing most clients are at least vaguely familiar with when they first consult with a lawyer is the fact that an attorney-client relationship and privilege is created, meaning that whatever the client talks about in front of the attorney will go no further. Many clients do not know the full extent of this privilege, including when it begins and ends, but they are at least aware of the fact that the privilege exists.

Sometimes lawyer’s have an ethical obligation to have to break the client’s confidence. If, for example, after meeting with and retaining a particular lawyer, the client calls her and advises her of his plans to commit suicide. The lawyer is not left with the decision of whether she has an ethical duty to disclose this fact. There have been many ethical discussions about this topic, but the general consensus is that if a client has threatened bodily harm against himself, the lawyer has an ethical duty to disclose that information.

Can an Existing Fee Agreement be Modified?

One of the first things a client does after meeting with and deciding to hire a lawyer, is she signs the fee agreement. Fee agreements are a way for the lawyer to convey to the client and the client to understand what she will be expected to pay for the lawyer’s services. It also lays out the scope of the lawyer’s representation.

However, sometimes circumstances change after the original fee agreement is signed. The case may become more involved that originally thought or may require hiring an additional lawyer to assist with the case. When something changes and the original fee agreement is no longer applicable, can the fee agreement be modified?

An American Bar Association Ethics Opinion which was released in July answered this question. In order to modify an original fee agreement, the lawyer needs to show that at the time the fee agreement was modified, the modification was reasonable under the circumstances and that the client agreed to the modification. As long as the lawyer can show that there was a reasonable need to modify the fee agreement and the client agreed to it, a fee agreement can be modified if the original one is no longer applicable. However, if the lawyer does not have a reasonable need to modify or does not notify the client, there may be a claim for punitive damages under the Connecticut Unfair Trade Practices Act.

If your attorney modified your fee agreement without discussing it with you first, contact our office to discuss your potential legal malpractice claim.

What the Future Holds for Saint Francis Hospital / Reardon Sex Abuse Cases

In follow-up to the August 1, 2011 court ruling on the defense lawyer’s withholding evidence in the Saint Francis Hospital / Reardon sex abuse case, the question becomes, what does this mean for the cases that settled without the benefit of this new evidence?

It is clear from the judge’s ruling that the evidence was highly relevant to the victim’s cases. The problem is, several victim’s settled their claims with Saint Francis Hospital before this evidence was turned over. The victim’s claims seem much more obvious now and it remains to be seen if several of the victim’s will try to get their cases re-opened in court because they did not have the benefit of this evidence when they settled their claims of sexual abuse by an employee of Saint Francis Hospital. Oddly here is a post from the website of the defense firm which provided the very late disclosure. http://www.employerslawblog.com/Entry.aspx?eID=344 St. Francis Hospital's own lawyers who provided these bylaws late and who were representing St. Francis at the time of the trials clearly understood their responsibility and the risk to their client St Francis Hospital. Risks that most law students would recognize.

To learn more about sex abuse cases, click here for an article posted on www.stangerlaw.com.

Bylaws Withheld in Saint Francis Hospital / Reardon Sex Abuse Cases

In follow-up to yesterday’s post, the August 1, 2011 court ruling in the Saint Francis Hospital / Reardon sex abuse case, let’s examine what evidence was improperly withheld by the defense lawyers. The lawyers for Saint Francis Hospital only recently turned over to the victim’s lawyers, Saint Francis Hospital’s medical staff bylaws for 8 years from early 1960 to early 1980. These bylaws set forth procedures for the hospital when reviewing research by it’s medical staff. The victims allege that the abuse by Reardon would have stopped if Saint Francis Hospital complied with this written policy of the doctors who worked at Saint Francis Hospital. These were safeguards by Saint Francis Hospital which were not followed.

The bylaws were clearly relevant to the victim’s claims. And the judge found that the defense lawyer’s failure to provide this evidence to the victims was unethical. This information was requested by the victim’s lawyers during the years leading up to trial but the defense lawyers for Saint Francis Hospital failed to turn any of this evidence over until mid-way through the second victim’s trial. During the second trial they turned over only the tip of the iceberg. The remaining bylaws were turned over in connection with a motion for sanctions filed after the second trial, only after the verdict for more than $2,000,000 against Saint Francis Hospital. The third trial is coming up soon, these never before seen bylaws will play an important role in upcoming trials.

To learn more about the Saint Francis Hospital / Reardon sex abuse cases, click here for the article printed in the Hartford Courant.

Unethical Behavior in the Saint Francis Hospital / Reardon Sex Abuse Cases

Many people have been following the recent sexual abuse litigation against Saint Francis Hospital. Prior to his death, Dr. George Reardon, a doctor at Saint Francis Hospital, abused hundreds of children from the 1960s through the 1980s under the guise of a growth study at Saint Francis Hospital in Hartford. This year two of the victims have had their day in court. Stanger & Arnold, LLP represents several of the victims in this matter.

In a ruling issued on August 1, 2011, the court found that the defense lawyers withheld relevant evidence in the Saint Francis Hospital sexual abuse cases. As part of the discovery process the defendants are required to turn over relevant evidence that is requested. What the judge just decided was that in January of 2010 the victims of the sexual abuse had requested the information that was not turned over until just a few months ago. In fact much of it was not turned over to the plaintiffs until after the trial of two of the cases that were completed this year. It was not turned over until after many of the plaintiffs had settled their cases. Sounds like lawyers behaving very badly. It is unclear how much Saint Francis Hospital knew and exactly what part Saint Francis Hospital played in attempting to hide the truth. But it is clear that the court has decided it was wrong and that someone had to pay.

To learn more about the Saint Francis Hospital / Reardon sex abuse cases, click here for the article printed in the Hartford Courant. More about this in upcoming posts.