MATTER OF SCIONTI Case Brief
Why Top Law Students (And Those Aspiring to Be) Use LSD+ Briefs
Let's be real, law school is a marathon. Our exclusive Flash-to-Full case system is designed by Harvard Law School and MIT grads to match your pace: Quick summaries when you're slammed, detailed analysis when you need to go deep. Only LSD+ offers this kind of flexibility to genuinely fit your study flow.
Adaptive Case Views
Toggle between Flash, Standard, and Expanded. Get what you need, when you need it.
Exam-Ready IRAC Format
We deliver the precise structure professors look for in exam answers.
Complex Cases, Clarified
We break down dense legal reasoning into something digestible, helping you grasp core concepts.
Case Brief Summary & Legal Analysis
tl;dr: An attorney advised his client to violate a court’s child custody order by not returning the child after visitation. The court held this was a professional ethics violation, even if motivated by concern for the child’s welfare, and issued a public reprimand.
Legal Significance: An attorney may not counsel a client to violate a valid court order. An attorney’s subjective belief that circumstances justify disobedience is not a defense to violating rules against counseling criminal conduct or engaging in conduct prejudicial to the administration of justice.
MATTER OF SCIONTI Law School Study Guide
Use this case brief structure for your own legal analysis. Focus on the IRAC methodology to excel in law school exams and cold calls.
Case Facts & Court Holding
Key Facts & Case Background
Respondent Kevin Scionti represented Gary Smoot in a post-dissolution proceeding concerning custody of his minor son. A court order granted custody to the mother, Annette, with specified weekend visitation for Gary. The mother was facing criminal charges for allegedly molesting the child. During a scheduled visitation, Scionti and co-counsel advised Gary to not return his son to the mother’s custody, in direct violation of the court’s visitation order. Gary followed this advice. In response, the court issued an ex parte order directing the immediate return of the child. Scionti’s subsequent motions to have the order removed and for emergency custody were both denied by the court. Despite these judicial reaffirmations of the mother’s custody rights, Gary continued to withhold the child on his attorneys’ advice. At a subsequent hearing, Gary was found in contempt of court for violating the order and was incarcerated for ninety days. The Disciplinary Commission brought charges against Scionti for his role in counseling the client’s actions.
Court Holding & Legal Precedent
Issue: Did an attorney violate the Rules of Professional Conduct by counseling his client to defy a valid court custody order, even when the attorney was motivated by a good-faith concern for the child’s welfare?
Yes. The court held that the respondent violated Rules 1.2(d) and 8.4(d) Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Duis aute irure dolor in reprehenderit in voluptate veli
IRAC Legal Analysis
Complete IRAC Analysis for Higher Grades
IRAC (Issue, Rule, Analysis, Conclusion) is the exact format professors want to see in your exam answers. Our exclusive Flash-to-Full briefs combine holding, analysis, and rule statements formatted to match what A+ students produce in exams. These structured briefs help reinforce the essential legal reasoning patterns expected in law school.
Legal Issue
Did an attorney violate the Rules of Professional Conduct by counseling his client to defy a valid court custody order, even when the attorney was motivated by a good-faith concern for the child’s welfare?
Conclusion
This case affirms the paramount duty of an attorney to uphold the Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequa
Legal Rule
Under Indiana's Rules of Professional Conduct, a lawyer shall not counsel a Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco l
Legal Analysis
The Supreme Court of Indiana found that the evidence clearly and convincingly Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Duis aute irure dolor in reprehenderit in voluptate velit esse cillum dolore eu fugiat nulla pariatur. Excepteur sint occaecat cupidatat non proident, sunt in culpa qui officia deserunt mollit anim id est laborum. Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Duis aute irure dolor in reprehenderit in voluptate velit esse cillum dolore eu fugiat nulla pariatur. Excepteur sint occaecat cupidatat non proident, sunt in culpa qui officia deserunt mollit anim id est laborum. Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Duis aute irure dolor in reprehenderit in voluptate velit esse cillum dolore eu fugiat nulla pariatur. Excepteur sint occaecat cupidatat non proident,
Flash-to-Full Case Opinions
Flash Summary
- An attorney violates ethics rules by counseling a client to defy