Update on “Redacted v Redacted”: Nothing to Report.

Posted By Cliff Tuttle | April 26, 2015

No. 1,147

PLBT first reported on March 2, 2015 that a strange case, Redacted v. Redacted,  had been filed in the Pennsylvania Supreme Court.

The case name came about because the names of the parties were redacted from the record — literally, blacked out.  In fact, the record of the entire case was impounded.

In this very unusual case, an attorney for a non-profit alerted the Attorney General’s Office of a potential diversion of funds by the non-profit client. This presents a unique ethical dilemma, because it is an apparent violation of the lawyer-client privilege.

We learned about the case from a blog post by Howard Bashman in How Appealing, who reports today that an article appears in the Trib with a meagre case update.

However, the Legal Intelligencer has the best coverage thus far, with an excellent report on April 13 and  a discussion in its ethics column on April 14.

Beyond what is reported in the Legal Intelligencer story, the public record is blank.  As a matter of fact, the index for the Supreme Court docket states that the case doesn’t even exist.

Welcome

CLIFF TUTTLE has been a Pennsylvania lawyer for over 45 years and (inter alia) is a real estate litigator and legal writer. The posts in this blog are intended to provide general information about legal topics of interest to lawyers and consumers with a Pittsburgh and Western Pennsylvania focus. However, this information does not constitute legal advice and there is no lawyer-client relationship created when you read this blog. You are encouraged to leave comments but be aware that posted comments can be read by others. If you wish to contact me in privacy, please use the Contact Form located immediately below this message. I will reply promptly and in strict confidence.

Subscribe to our feed