Unethical Lawyer- Obtains Confidential Court Cases for Personal Curiousity

[Ajkert674]

Jurisdiction

Virginia

Here is the background: a man (Bill) and a woman (Jessica) are dating, this man clearly has a contentious relationship with his ex-wife (Karen) over custody of their son. Jessica's parents (Chris and Sarah) are concerned about that relationship. They want to know more. Luckily for them, Chris is a lawyer. However, Chris is a Corporate Lawyer and never handled a family law or custody case. None the less, Chris uses his bar license to obtain the entirety of the court case documents related to the custody case between Bill and Karen. Chris and Sarah go on to share the contents of the case, which obviously involved a minor, including financial disclosures, testimonies, and accusations, with the general public. They shared this confidential information by saying it was "publicly accessible" when in fact it was not at all, a legal license was required to obtain the information. Obviously Chris and Sarah's actions were unethical and probably frowned upon by the legal system, but did they break the law sharing the confidential contents of the case that involved a minor with the general public?

 

[adjusterjack]

a legal license was required to obtain the information.

Where did you get that idea? Not being snide. Court case files ARE public record.

 

[Ajkert674]

Where did you get that idea? Not being snide. Court case files ARE public record.

Even if it involves a minor? Don't the have protected rights? Also, Chris and Sarah said they had to pay "thousands of dollars" to pull the file. Does that sound accurate? I have no idea.

 

[mightymoose]

You can direct your question to the court clerk's office to see what they have to say about the information being released.
While court records are public information they can contain confidential elements that are not intended for release.
Whether or not anything inappropriate was done will have to be determined by someone with access to and control of the information.

If you believe something inappropriate was done you can report it here for investigation:
Virginia State Bar -

 

[army judge]

Chris and Sarah said they had to pay "thousands of dollars" to pull the file.

Never communicate with your adversary, or friends of your adversary.

Why?

Propaganda, scare tactics, lies, deceit, bullying, misinformation, disinformation all designed to keep you from focusing on the matter at hand; the court case.

Don't listen to, gossip, don't gossip, keep your life and your business private.

 

[zddoodah]

Are you Bill or Jessica?

Chris uses his bar license to obtain the entirety of the court case documents related to the custody case between Bill and Karen.

With rare exceptions, court case files are public records, and anyone can view and obtain copies of them. What makes you think that Chris "use[d] his bar license" to do this?

Chris and Sarah go on to share the contents of the case . . . with the general public.

How so?

They shared this confidential information by saying it was "publicly accessible" when in fact it was not at all, a legal license was required to obtain the information.

Again, why do you think they weren't publicly accessible?

Where did you get that idea? Not being snide. Court case files ARE public record.

Even if it involves a minor?

Yes. Does this mean the only reason you believe the case file was not publicly accessible is because it involves a minor?

Don't the have protected rights?

Minors, like everyone else, have dozens of legal rights, but they have no legal rights that alter the general rule that court case files are public records.

Chris and Sarah said they had to pay "thousands of dollars" to pull the file. Does that sound accurate?

Doesn't make any difference. However, courts often charge exorbitant rates for making copies (e.g., as much as 25 cents per page). If a case file is large, the charges could pile up fast.

 

[hrforme]

plus if Chris is using an attorney's hourly rate, "thousands of dollars" might be accurate depending on how many files there were and the time it takes to go through them. But I have to agree that usually these would be considered public records.

I do have to wonder who you are in the situation though.....

 

[Ajkert674]

Are you Bill or Jessica?



With rare exceptions, court case files are public records, and anyone can view and obtain copies of them. What makes you think that Chris "use[d] his bar license" to do this?



How so?



Again, why do you think they weren't publicly accessible?



Yes. Does this mean the only reason you believe the case file was not publicly accessible is because it involves a minor?



Minors, like everyone else, have dozens of legal rights, but they have no legal rights that alter the general rule that court case files are public records.



Doesn't make any difference. However, courts often charge exorbitant rates for making copies (e.g., as much as 25 cents per page). If a case file is large, the charges could pile up fast.

I'm not Jessica or Bill in this situation, but I am close with the Jessica in the situation and really disturbed by what her parents put her through. We asked a lawyer friend a while ago how they could have obtained the information and were told only by someone with a bar license which is frowned upon but in no way illegal. Maybe we weren't clear enough with our questions. It only came to my mind recently that sharing the information, and by that I verbally communicating their interpretations of the case as fact to most people, may be illegal. I think at worst, or at least, it could be considered slander/libel ( I forget the difference) since they did not accurately represent what they found, but that's nearly impossible to prove. But if it is all public knowledge regardless, anyone could pull the info and prove them wrong, I guess they did nothing inherently illegal. It's just their timing and aggressiveness caused so many problems it feels like they did something illegal. Bill and Jessica are happily married now btw.

 

[adjusterjack]

Even if it involves a minor? Don't the have protected rights? Also, Chris and Sarah said they had to pay "thousands of dollars" to pull the file. Does that sound accurate? I have no idea.

You made a statement

a legal license was required to obtain the information.

that implied that you knew what you were talking about. And now you admit that you don't know what you are talking about.

I'm not Jessica or Bill in this situation,

Then perhaps you should let Jessica and Bill handle their own affairs.

 

[zddoodah]

We asked a lawyer friend a while ago how they could have obtained the information and were told only by someone with a bar license which is frowned upon but in no way illegal.

In a legal sense, "frowned upon" has no meaning. Things are either legal or they're illegal. "Legal but frowned upon" is not a concept that has any meaning.

It only came to my mind recently that sharing the information, and by that I verbally communicating their interpretations of the case as fact to most people, may be illegal. I think at worst, or at least, it could be considered slander/libel ( I forget the difference)

Slander and libel are the two types of defamation, which is the making of a false statement of fact to at least one person who isn't the subject of the statement. Slander is spoken defamation. Libel is defamation that is written in any form.

Sounds like Chris and Sarah are obnoxious folks, but there's an awful lot of room within the law to be obnoxious.

 

[ElleMD]

The records could be obtained by anyone willing to go to the court house and request them. Some states have access available online for some documents and attorneys generally have case search subscriptions to make finding cases easier. The attorney on a case has more than public information but that information wouldn't be accessible to anyone else with or without a license.

The in-laws sound like a nightmare but any sharing of public information is legal. Sounds like someone needs to have a talk about boundaries with a parent or two, but no laws were broken.

 

[zddoodah]

Some states have access available online for some documents and attorneys generally have case search subscriptions to make finding cases easier.

This is a good point that may explain the bit about using the bar ID to obtain the documents.