Wilbourn v. United States of America, No. 4:2012cv04186 - Document 21 (D.S.D. 2013)
Court Description: MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER re: Attorney-Client Privilege Waiver granting 20 MOTION for Order Directing Former Defense Counsel to Respond to Claims of Ineffective Assistance, and Motion for Extension of Time to Answer filed by United States of America. Signed by US Magistrate Judge John E. Simko on 1/25/13. (CMS)
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
I f UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF SOUTH DAKOTA PILeD JAN 25 2013 ?Noell * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * ~~\~* * * SOUTHERN DIVISION *********** * CIV 12-4186 * * Movant, * MEMORANDUM OPINION AND * ORDER RE: A TIORNEY-CLIENT vs. * PRIVILEGE WAIVER * UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, * * Respondent. * * ************ *************************************** JAMES MICHAEL WILBOURN, I I i l The Government has requested an Order Directing Fonner Defense Counsel to Respond to Defendant's Claims of Ineffective Assistance set forth in the Movant's Motion under 28 U.S.c. § 2255. The Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals has recognized that the attorney-client privilege may be impliedly waived when a client attacks his attorney's competence and raises the issue of ineffectiveness or incompetence of counsel. See Tasby v. United States, 504 F.2d 332 (8th Cir. 1974). ABA Model Rule of Professional Conduct 1.6 also recognizes that a disclosure may be impliedly authorized under certain circumstances including when a lawyer must respond to allegations in any proceeding concerning the lawyer's representation of his or her client. The American Bar Association, however, has issued an opinion advising that fonner counsel confronted with a client making ineffective assistance ofcounsel claims, consistent with their ethical obligations (1) may not disclose infonnation imparted to him or her in confidence without first obtaining the infonned consent ofthe fonner client; and (2) may only disclose such infonnation in "court-supervised testimony." ABA Comm. on Eth. and Profl Responsibility, Fonnal Op. 10-456 (July 14, 2010). In consideration ofthe allegations set forth in Movant's Motion under 28 U .S.c. § 2255 this Court has detennined that the Government cannot respond to the allegations ofineffective assistance I I t of counsel without Attorney Scott Hendricks Leuning responding by affidavit to the specific allegations in the Motion concerning his representation of Movant. If Movant opposes the waiver ofthe Attorney-Client privilege as it relates to the specific allegations in his Motion under 28 U .S.C. § 2255, those allegations will be stricken from Movant's Motion under 28 U.S.C. § 2255. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED: 1. The Respondent's Motion (Doc. 20) directing former defense counsel to respond and for extension is granted as follows: A. That the Clerk shall send this Order and the attached Attorney-Client Privilege Waiver form to Movant; B. That ifthe Attorney-Client Privilege Waiver form is not signed and returned to the Clerk for filing within 21 days, the allegations of ineffective assistance of counsel will be stricken from Movant's Motion under 28 U.S.C. § 2255; C. That if the Attorney-Client Privilege Waiver form is signed and filed, the Government shall forward a copy of the signed Attorney-Client Privilege Waiver form to Attorney Scott Hendricks Leuning, along with a copy ofthis Order and Movant's § 2255 Motion. Attorney Scott Hendricks Leuningshall within 14 days of receiving the Attorney-Client Privilege Waiver form provide and file with the Clerk an affidavit responding to the specific allegations in the § 2255 Motion concerning his representation of Movant. D. The United States shall file its response within 14 days after receiving Scott Hendricks Leuning's affidavit. Dated this ~day of January, 2013. BY THE COURT: States Magistrate Judge ATTORNEY·CLIENT PRIVILEGE WAIVER You have made a motion under 28 U.S.C. § 2255 alleging that you received ineffective assistance from your former lawyer, Scott Hendricks Leuning. The Court has reviewed your motion and determined that an affidavit from your former lawyer concerning the specific allegations in your motion is necessary to in order to evaluate your motion. The American Bar Association advises your attorney to obtain your consent before disclosing confidential communications between you and him that may bear on the disposition ofyour motion. This is a professional ethics requirement. As a matter of law, you have waived the attorney· client privilege regarding the allegations of ineffective assistance of counsel in your motion. This means that if you wish to proceed on your claims of ineffective assistance, you must allow your communications with your former counsel concerning the specific claims to be disclosed to the Government and to the Court. If you wish to proceed with your claims of ineffective assistance of counsel as set forth in your Section 2255 motion, you must sign this form and return it to the Court. The form authorizes your attorney to disclose confidential communications only to the extent necessary to address the ineffective assistance of counsel claims that are raised by your 28 U.S.c. § 2255 motion. You should know that ifyou sign this authorization, you run the risk that your attorney will contradict your statements about his representation ofyou. However, you should also know that the Court will strike the ineffective assistance ofcounsel claims in your motion ifyou do not authorize your attorney to give an affidavit in response to the ineffective assistance claims. You must return this form within fourteen (14) days from the date of the Court's order directing the clerk to mail this Waiver to you or the allegations ofineffective assistance ofcounsel will be stricken from your motion under 28 U.S.C. § 2255. AUTHORIZATION I have read the document entitled "Attorney-Client Privilege Waiver." I hereby authorize my former attorney, Scott Hendricks Leuning, to disclose confidential communications only to the extent necessary to address the ineffective assistance of counsel claims that are raised by my motion under 28 U.S.C. § 2255. Dated this _ _ day _ _ _ _ _ _, 2013. Movant
]]>
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You
should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google
Privacy Policy and
Terms of Service apply.
