Matter of Lennon, 439 N.E.2d 398 (N.Y. 1982)
An attorney must obey a court order, even if the attorney believes the order is erroneous; the proper course is to object to the order and seek appellate review, not to defy it directly.
Summary
This case concerns an attorney who was held in contempt for refusing to follow a court order. The attorney believed the order forced him to violate his ethical duties to his clients. The New York Court of Appeals affirmed the contempt order, holding that the attorney’s proper course of action was to obey the order and seek appellate review, not to defy it. The court emphasized the importance of maintaining order in the courtroom and ensuring judicial authority is respected. While acknowledging the difficult position the attorney was placed in, the court ultimately prioritized adherence to the rule of law and the orderly administration of justice.
Facts
An attorney from the Monroe County Public Defender’s office, representing an indigent defendant named Lennon, discovered that the chief prosecution witness against Lennon was also represented by the same Public Defender’s office in an unrelated criminal matter. The attorney informed the court about the potential conflict of interest and requested the appointment of independent counsel for the witness. The trial court denied this request and ordered the attorney to proceed with Lennon’s trial. The court prohibited the attorney from questioning the witness about the pending criminal charges, limiting cross-examination to prior bad acts.
Procedural History
The trial court ordered the attorney to proceed with the trial under the stated limitations. The attorney refused to conduct the cross-examination as ordered, resulting in a contempt citation. The contempt order was appealed. The Appellate Division affirmed the contempt order. The New York Court of Appeals affirmed the Appellate Division’s decision.
Issue(s)
Whether an attorney is justified in disobeying a direct court order based on the attorney’s belief that the order requires them to violate ethical obligations to their client(s).
Holding
No, because an attorney must obey a court order, even if the attorney believes the order is erroneous; the proper course is to object to the order and seek appellate review, not to defy it directly.
Court’s Reasoning
The court emphasized the importance of maintaining order and decorum in the courtroom, stating that “to allow counsel to second-guess the court’s ruling and decide, unilaterally, that it is not to be obeyed would be to invite chaos and undermine the court’s authority.” The court acknowledged the attorney’s dilemma but stated that “[a]n order of the court must be obeyed, irrespective of its apparent validity, unless and until it is overturned by orderly review.” The court reasoned that established legal procedure provides adequate means for challenging erroneous orders. The proper course of action is to make objections, preserve the issue for appeal, and, if necessary, seek a stay of the proceedings. The dissent argued that the trial court’s order so clearly abused its power that the attorney had no reasonable alternative but to disobey. The dissent also noted that the court’s order placed the attorney in an untenable ethical position, forcing him to choose between his duties to two different clients. Justice Kaye, in dissent, argued, “But this concern, however vital, should not cause this court to overlook a rare instance when, as here, a trial court has so clearly abused its considerable power as to leave counsel with no reasonable alternative.” The majority, however, weighed concerns about court authority higher than the lawyer’s ethical quandary.