Lawyer gets stayed suspension after response to one-star review; is 'offensive personality' a violation?
An Indiana lawyer has received a 30-day stayed suspension in an ethics case that raised this issue: Can a lawyer be sanctioned for an “offensive personality”? (Image from Shutterstock)
An Indiana lawyer has received a 30-day stayed suspension in an ethics case that raised this issue: Can a lawyer be sanctioned for an “offensive personality”?
Lawyer Stanley F. Wruble III of Indiana received the stayed suspension for revealing client confidences and acting in an offensive manner in his response to a one-star Google review. He will have to successfully complete 18 months of disciplinary probation and attend anger management therapy, according to a July 18 order by the Indiana Supreme Court.
Wruble and disciplinary authorities had reached agreement on ethics violations and the sanction.
The Legal Profession Blog and the Volokh Conspiracy noted the decision, which approved the statement of circumstances and the conditional agreement for discipline.
According to the order, the client’s review had complained of difficulties communicating with Wruble. Wruble “then made multiple demands, using derogatory and profane language, that client remove the review,” the order said.
When the client refused, Wruble revealed damaging information about the client relating to the subject of the representation in a public response to the review and in a defamation lawsuit. The suit was tossed in January 2024.
In a concurrence and in a partial dissent, four of the Indiana Supreme Court’s five justices questioned whether attorneys can be sanctioned for violating Indiana Admission and Discipline Rule 22. The rule requires lawyers to take and subscribe to an oath that includes a promise to “abstain from offensive personality.”
A concurrence by three of the justices said there was no need to decide the offensive-personality issue because violation of the client-representation rule was reason enough for the sanction. But they said they were open to considering the issue in a future case in which the offensive-personality charge makes a difference.
In a partial concurrence and partial dissent, Justice Geoffrey G. Slaughter said he concurred with the agreed-upon discipline but only for revealing information related to the representation.
Slaughter expressed concern about imposing sanctions for violation of the “broad and aspirational” oath. An offensive personality, he said, is “an inherently subjective assessment that risks a dangerous slippery slope. The rules contemplate a wide range of permissible lawyer conduct that runs the gamut from amiable to aggressive, milquetoast to militant, passive to pugnacious. Unpopular lawyers or those with disfavored clients may be especially vulnerable to enforcement overreach.”
The better practice, he said, is to ground ethics charges in “one or more targeted professional-conduct rules.”
Wruble did not immediately respond to the ABA Journal’s request for comment in an email and a message left with his office.
