Disciplinary Counsel v. Holmes And Kerr

120 N.E.3d 820 (2018)

Purchase the Printed Copy at bsmsphd.com

Nature of the Case

To access this section all you need to do is click here and register.

Facts

Holmes (D) and Kerr (D), both attorneys, commenced a personal relationship. They each primarily represented public school districts in their respective law practices. Between January 2015 and November 2016, they exchanged more than a dozen e-mails in which they revealed client information to each other, including information protected by the work-product doctrine or the attorney-client privilege, although they were not employed by the same law firm and did not jointly represent any clients. Kerr (D) forwarded to Holmes (D) e-mails from her clients requesting legal documents. In response, Holmes (D) forwarded to Kerr(D) e-mails that he had exchanged with his clients that included similar documents he had prepared for them. In about one-third of these e-mail exchanges, Holmes (D) had ultimately completed Kerr's (D) work for her. Holmes's (D) law firm discovered that he had disclosed confidential client information to Kerr (D) and as a result, removed him from the firm. A partner also filed a grievance against him, and the law firm's counsel notified Kerr's (D) employer of the e-mail exchanges. Kerr (D) consequently admitted to the partners of her firm that she and Holmes (D) had exchanged client information and that he had assisted her with her work. Kerr (D) continued to send confidential client information to Holmes (D) and he continued to assist her in preparing legal documents for her clients. In November 2016, Kerr (D) resigned from her law firm.