[textbook]Traversing the Ethical Minefield Problems, Law, and Professional Responsibility by Susan R. Martyn (z-lib.org)(1) (1)

to disclose his client’s identity would result in the enforcement of the trial court’s contempt
order. Judges use contempt sanctions to coerce or punish a lawyer or litigant. Civil
contempt occurs when a judge orders fines or imprisonment to accrue until the person in
contempt complies with the court order. Criminal contempt punishes refusal to comply
and requires elaborate procedural guarantees, similar to those in criminal trials.
Occasionally, a lawyer will risk contempt by violating a court order for the express purpose
of challenging its validity, scope, or meaning. 10 Usually this is done only if no other
procedural avenue of appeal is open to the client. In situations where procedural rules
provide for appeal, however, lawyers have been both held in contempt and disciplined for
failing to obey the court order or properly challenging it. 11
Court orders legally limit a lawyer’s advocacy on behalf of a client, but their availability
also affords lawyers the opportunity to challenge otherwise unassailable legal rules. For
example, lawyers with nonfrivolous legal reasons to seek communication with jurors or
represented persons may seek court approval to protect themselves against both contempt
and disciplinary action. 12
Court Orders and Client Advocacy
The lawyers in the cases discussed in this chapter understood that court orders, combined
with a court’s contempt power, could limit their duties to a client. At the same time, they
vigorously advocated (often successfully) for legal recognition of their client’s interests
within and up to this limit of the law.
Hughes v. Meade
453 S.W.2d 538 (Ky. 1970)
CLAY, Commissioner. . . .
Petitioner, an attorney, seeks to restrain the respondent from enforcing a contempt
ruling entered against him because of his refusal to answer a question as a witness in a
criminal trial. Petitioner was not a party to, nor did he represent anyone as an attorney in
such proceeding.
The proceeding in which he was called as a witness was the trial of one Williams on a
criminal charge involving the theft of an IBM typewriter. Petitioner had participated in the
return of an IBM typewriter to the Lexington Police Department. His testimony with
respect thereto, and so much thereof as is pertinent to the question presented, is as follows:
Q. “Would you tell the jury the circumstances and how you happened to deliver that
typewriter?
A. “Well, a certain party called me and employed me because of, first of all, my
relationship with the Lexington Police Department, which is very good, and I do
entirely criminal law and know all of the policemen and members of the Police
Department, and asked me if I could get some property returned without getting
165