Buried Bodies Case

In the summer of 1973, attorney Frank H. Armani was appointed to serve as counsel for Robert Garrow, Sr.[3][2] Garrow, a 38-year old mechanic of a Syracuse bakery, was charged with murdering Philip Domblewski.[3] Domblewski, an 18-year-old college student, was murdered while camping in the Adirondacks.[1] He was tied to a tree and stabbed to death.[1][2] Three friends were also ambushed, but escaped, leading to an eleven-day manhunt for the killer.[1][5] With no experience in murder trials, Armani recruited his friend Francis Belge, an experienced criminal defense attorney, to help represent Garrow.[1]

Ahead of trial, Garrow told his attorneys that he killed Domblewski.[1] Garrow also claimed he murdered and hid the bodies of two missing women, Susan Petz and Alicia Hauck.[1] He drew a diagram to show them where Petz was buried.[7] Armani later claimed that Garrow confessed to the murders after Armani hypnotized him.[4][2]

Following Garrow's confession, Armani and Belge decided to confirm whether Garrow was telling the truth.[4] They used Garrow's diagram to uncover Petz's body in an airshaft of a coal mine.[1][7] Belge later uncovered Hauck's body in a nearby cemetery based on Garrow's description.[1] The lawyers photographed the remains of both women.[8] Belge moved Hauck's body to ensure a dismembered part was included in the photograph.[9] They later destroyed the photographs, the record of their conversation with Garrow, and the diagram he drew.[4][9]

Belge and Armani told no one about their discoveries.[8] The attorneys believed they were bound by a duty of confidentiality not to disclose information that could incriminate their client.[3][10] They chose not to alert authorities despite pleas from Hauck's father for information.[3][2] Hauck and Armani's daughter went to the same school.[5] Family members and authorities continued to search for the women.[8] The bodies were discovered accidentally five months after Garrow confessed in private to his attorneys.[3]

Armani and Belge proposed a plea bargain using the information they had uncovered ahead of trial.[4] They told the prosecutor that they might be able to provide information to help authorities find the missing women if Garrow were sentenced to life in a mental hospital rather than prison.[1] The prosecutor refused.[1]

In the summer of 1974, Garrow's trial for the murder of Domblewski began.[4] Armani and Belge pursued an insanity defense.[4] While testifying in his own defense, Garrow admitted to murdering four people including Petz and Hauck.[1] During direct examination of Garrow, Belge asked, “Is that the one I found?” implying that he was aware of the dead women prior to trial.[1] The attorneys held a press conference the next day, where they admitted they had known about the location of the missing women for six months.[1]

Garrow was convicted for Domblewski's murder.[1] He was sentenced to 25 years to life in prison.[1]

Armani and Belge were harassed and threatened by the public for keeping information about the deceased women secret.[11] They received death threats and angry letters.[5] News outlets claimed they obstructed justice or acted as accomplices after the fact.[12] The public also criticized lawyers generally for their callousness and lack of concern for the public interest.[12][2] Armani and Belge faced criminal and ethical proceedings that were later found to be unwarranted.[1]

A grand jury investigated the attorneys' conduct.[3] Belge was indicted for allegedly violating two state public health laws by failing to disclose his discovery of the dead bodies.[12][13]

In People v. Belge, Belge claimed conversations about the missing women were confidential and protected by the attorney-client privilege, which prevents lawyers from disclosing protected communications about their clients.[12][14] He claimed he could not have shared the information with authorities.[12][14] The National Association of Criminal Defense lawyers wrote a brief supporting Belge, arguing that attorney-client privilege would be destroyed if Belge were convicted.[12]

The New York county court dismissed the indictment "in the interests of justice."[12] The court found that Belge had protected the Fifth Amendment constitutional right of his client not to incriminate himself.[12] It also found that Garrow's disclosure of information about the missing women was protected by confidentiality and the attorney-client privilege.[12] In its decision, the court explained:

"The effectiveness of counsel is only as great as the confidentiality of its client-attorney relationship. If the lawyer cannot get all the facts about the case, he can only give his client half of a defense. This, of necessity, involves telling his attorney everything remotely connected with the crime."[12]

The prosecution appealed.[15] The appeals court confirmed that the claims should be dismissed, but expressed concern about a limitless attorney-client privilege.[15] It noted that attorneys must protect their clients, but must also "observe basic human standards of decency."[15]

One of the victims' parents filed ethics complaints against Armani and Belge with New York State Bar Association disciplinary officials.[3]

The New York State Bar Association Committee on Professional Ethics found that the attorneys acted ethically by refusing to disclose information about the missing women.[9][16] The committee explained that the attorneys would have violated their ethical obligations to keep their client's confidential information secret if they had disclosed the details to authorities.[9]

The ethics opinion emphasized that the attorney-client privilege is necessary to ensure clients disclose all possible pertinent information to their lawyers.[9][16] It further explained that disclosure of all possibly pertinent information allows attorneys to craft the strongest defense and protect their clients' rights to the fullest extent.[9]

Although both lawyers were ultimately absolved of wrongdoing, the fallout took a toll on Armani and Belge.[1] Belge abandoned his law practice and moved to Florida.[1] Armani suffered a heart attack.[1] His law practice was initially destroyed though he later rebuilt it.[1]

Four years after his conviction, Garrow escaped from prison.[11] When authorities searched his cell, they found a hit list including Armani and Belge's names.[11] Armani gave police advice about where Garrow might have gone.[11] This information led police to discover Garrow hiding near the prison.[11] He was shot and killed.[11]

Lawyers have an ethical obligation to keep their clients' information secret.[5][6] This duty of confidentiality extends beyond information the client tells the lawyer directly.[5] Any information a lawyer learns "relating to the representation of the client" must be kept confidential, including information learned from interviews, photographs, or observations.[5][6] A lawyer can disclose information if a client consents.[6] If a lawyer violates their client's confidentiality, the lawyer may be subject to disciplinary proceedings.[5]

Some states have adopted exceptions to this rule.[5][17] One exception adopted by some states is that a lawyer may reveal client information if they believe the disclosure is necessary to prevent reasonably certain death or substantial bodily harm.[6]

Lawyers cannot be compelled to disclose certain lawyer-client communications due to the attorney-client privilege.[5] "Privileged" information includes communications where a client seeks legal advice or services.[5] Attorney-client privilege is not an ethical obligation, but rather a procedural rule.[5] A court can quash a request for a lawyer to disclose information that violates the privilege.[5]

The Fifth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution protects defendants against self-incrimination.[18]

While ethical rules are determined by each state, portions of the ABA's Model Rules of Professional Conduct have been adopted by 49 states.[17][20] All states have some ethical duty of confidentiality in their code of professional responsibility.[21]

The Buried Bodies Case helped shape the development of one of the main exceptions to the ABA's rule on confidentiality (Model Rule 1.6).[4] Model Rule 1.6 provides that a lawyer will not reveal information relevant to her representation of a client without the client's consent.[6] The case contributed to an exception that allows lawyers to disclose information if a person could be imminently harmed.[4] The exception states that a lawyer may reveal information relating to their client if they reasonably believe it is necessary "to prevent reasonably certain death or substantial bodily harm."[6]

This exception, added by amendment in 2002, was hotly contested; lawyers worried the language might erode the duty of confidentiality.[3]

The case has become a touchstone of legal ethics courses.[1] The case is widely taught in law schools to examine concerns that arise out of the duty of confidentiality.[3] It is a fixture in professional responsibility textbooks.[5][22]

It may have also encouraged legal ethics professors to incorporate problems or case studies into their teaching.[4] The Buried Bodies Case provided professors with an example in the mid-1970s of how ethical issues could be taught from a human perspective with real world problems.[4]

The case has also been used by business schools to explore the challenges that can arise from role-based obligations.[23]