Lawyer receives public reprimand from court over document disposal practice(s)
|
Date Reported:
9/30/10
Organization:
Attorney Steven A. Litz, Esquire
Contractor/Consultant/Branch:
None
Location:
Central Indiana
Victims:
"clients and former clients"
Number Affected:
Undisclosed
Types of Data:
Confidential client information
Breach Description:
"An Indiana adoption lawyer whose client files were scattered in the wind after his adult children left boxes of them beside a recycling bin has received a public reprimand" from the Indiana Supreme Court
Reference URL:
Law.com
Indiana Supreme Court Published Order
Report Credit:
Indiana Supreme Court
Response:
From the online sources cited above:
An Indiana adoption lawyer whose client files were scattered in the wind after his adult children left boxes of them beside a recycling bin has received a public reprimand.
The Indiana Supreme Court on Sept. 30 issued the reprimand against Steven Litz, whose Monrovia, Ind., practice focuses on adoption and criminal law.
The court noted that it was the third time Litz had received a public reprimand.
[Evan] I am not a lawyer. I wonder what the real impact of a "public reprimand" is. The other two reprimands were received for other, unrelated, actions (see below).
Litz directed his two children to take about 14 boxes of client files he wanted to discard to a local recycling bin, according to the decision.
[Evan] Obviously not a wise decision.
Finding that the bins were full, they left the boxes on the ground beside the bins and did not tell Litz.
The wind later blew the tops off the boxes and sent some of the papers flying into public view.
[Evan] Had the wind not blown, we probably would have never found out about Mr. Litz's data disposal practices. Neither Mr. Litz nor his two adult children thought anything unwise in disposing of confidential information in a recycling bin?
After someone notified Litz of the situation, he and his children retrieved the documents.
[Evan] Did the conversation start with something like this? "Uh, Mr. Litz… Those confidential documents that you should have shredded are blowing all over town"
Litz did not return telephone calls seeking comment.
The court found that even if the documents had been placed into the bins, client confidentiality could have been breached.
[Evan] Absolutely, they could have.
"[T]he information would've been available for opportunists to retrieve, with potentially devastating consequences to the clients," the court wrote. "Shredding client files an attorney no longer needs prior to disposal is one alternative for providing far safer protection of client information."
The court found that Litz had violated the Indiana Professional Conduct Rules that prohibit attorneys from revealing information related to current and former clients without consent.
In determining the appropriate discipline, the court noted that no client information appeared to have been lost or disclosed and that Litz had a history of pro bono service.
[Evan] I wonder what the discipline would have been if client information had been lost or disclosed. Do you think that Mr. Litz had disposed of his other confidential information in a secure manner (in the past)? He has been in practice for 23 years!
It also noted that Litz cooperated with the Indiana Supreme Court Disciplinary Commission in the matter.
In 2008, the Indiana Supreme Court issued a public reprimand against Litz for directly communicating with another lawyer's client.
In 1999, the court reprimanded him for writing a letter to local newspapers about his client's innocence during a retrial.
The court in that case found that his conduct violated Indiana's ethics rules forbidding attorneys from making extrajudicial statements that may prejudice a court proceeding.
Litz handles surrogacy and adoption cases, in addition to drunk driving and general criminal matters.
Commentary:
I really dislike commenting on the seemingly obvious all of the time. Hopefully, you (the reader) know that recycling confidential information is not a secure means of disposal. At least not until the documents have actually been recycled.
I am not clear about what a "public reprimand" is or what impact it has on a lawyer's practice. I know we have some lawyers who read this blog, maybe they will feel compelled to comment. I also wonder how many reprimands a lawyer is allowed to receive before something really bad happens.
Written by Evan Francen, President FRSecure LLC
About FRSecure LLC
Past Breaches:
Unknown
Posted by Evan Francen at 10/11/2010 4:22 PM 
Categories: Steven A. Litz, Insecure Discard
Tags: security breach data breach
Categories: Steven A. Litz, Insecure Discard
Tags: security breach data breach
Posts Atom 1.0
Comments