In the Matter of Michael A. Blickman
18S-DI-553
| Ind. | Dec 9, 2020Background
- Park Tudor School's outside counsel Michael Blickman met (Dec 14–16, 2015) with the headmaster and the father of a 15‑year‑old student who produced a laptop with sexually explicit materials apparently exchanged with teacher Kyle Cox. Blickman retained copies on a thumb drive and returned the laptop to the father.
- Blickman drafted a proposed settlement between the school and the family containing a broad confidentiality clause; the draft was never executed.
- Blickman told the headmaster overnight that a report to the Department of Child Services (DCS) was required; the school delayed and then gave an incomplete/misleading DCS report on Dec 15.
- Blickman emailed the family’s lawyer warning that DCS or police interviews would be barred by the proposed agreement; the father then canceled a scheduled DCS interview. Police later executed warrants; Blickman initially resisted but produced the copied materials.
- Consequences included the headmaster’s suicide, federal prosecution and conviction of Cox, a deferred‑prosecution agreement for Park Tudor, and a disciplinary complaint against Blickman. The Indiana Supreme Court found violations of Prof. Cond. R. 1.1 and 8.4(d) and imposed a public reprimand; other charged violations were not sustained.
Issues
| Issue | Commission's Argument | Blickman’s Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Confidentiality clause / attempts to silence the victim (competence & prejudicial conduct) | Clause and emails sought to prevent cooperation with DCS/IMPD and were aimed at silencing the victim | Clause was mutual, aimed at resolving matter; Blickman reasonably believed a report already had been made | Violated Rule 1.1 (incompetent representation) and Rule 8.4(d) (prejudicial to administration of justice) |
| Timeliness of advice to report to DCS (Rule 1.1; Rule 1.2(d)) | Blickman should have known reporting law (C.S.) and advised immediately | Blickman was not familiar with C.S., researched overnight, advised by 7:00 a.m. to report and offered to report himself | No violation of Rule 1.1 or 1.2(d); his overnight research and early‑morning advice were reasonable |
| Failure to report directly to DCS (criminality under Rule 8.4(b)) | Blickman had a statutory duty to report and failed to do so | Whether attorneys must report client‑related abuse is unsettled; confidentiality concerns exist | No Rule 8.4(b) violation: unsettled law and any statutory breach lacked the requisite nexus to fitness as a lawyer |
| Possession/handling of child pornography (Rule 8.4(b)) | Copying and retaining explicit images constituted criminal possession reflecting on fitness | He preserved evidence of misconduct for client purposes and did not view materials for prurient ends | No Rule 8.4(b) violation: facts did not show criminality that clearly reflected on honesty/fitness, though conduct was criticized and should have involved law enforcement sooner |
| Appropriate sanction | Commission sought suspension without automatic reinstatement | Blickman sought private reprimand; argued lack of selfish motive and long clean practice history | Public reprimand imposed; costs assessed to Blickman |
Key Cases Cited
- C.S. v. State, 8 N.E.3d 668 (Ind. 2014) (mandatory‑reporting immediacy and fact‑specific standard)
- Matter of Keiffner, 79 N.E.3d 903 (Ind. 2017) (deference to hearing‑officer findings on witness credibility)
- Matter of Campanella, 56 N.E.3d 631 (Ind. 2016) (examples of conduct prejudicial to administration of justice)
- Matter of Halpin, 53 N.E.3d 405 (Ind. 2015) (threats and baseless accusations as prejudicial conduct)
- Matter of Hill, 144 N.E.3d 184 (Ind. 2020) (Rule 8.4(b) requires nexus between criminal act and lawyer fitness)
- Matter of Schalk, 985 N.E.2d 1092 (Ind. 2013) (attorney criminality precedent discussed as contrast)
- Matter of Raquet, 870 N.E.2d 1048 (Ind. 2007) (sanction for attorney viewing child pornography)
- Matter of Rabb, 704 N.E.2d 117 (Ind. 1998) (major‑deviation standard for Rule 1.1 incompetence)
- Matter of Hollander, 27 N.E.3d 278 (Ind. 2015) (use of ABA sanctions standards as guidance)
- Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (U.S. 1984) (ineffective‑assistance analogy referenced in concurrence)