Msgr. Lynn Trial

 

As many MOJ readers are aware, next week begins a historic trial in Pennsylvania. In Philadelphia, four priests face criminal charges stemming from child sexual abuse allegations. Three defendants are accused of molesting children and one, Msgr. William Lynn, is the former Secretary for Clergy for the Archdiocese of Philadelphia where his duties included the assignment of priests. He is accused of endangering the welfare of children in his assignments, actions, and failures to act.

I plan on blogging about this case as it unfolds in what promises to be a very interesting trial. The cases raise fascinating legal issues regarding child protection, duty of care, retroactivity, attorney client privilege, as well as others.

I have spared MOJ readers many of the pretrial events which have garnered the focus of the mainstream media. However, an interesting development took place on Saturday raising further questions of ethics and what happens when lawyers start working on behalf of the Church…as opposed to what should happen.

The Philadelphia Inquirer reports that the Archdiocese has suspended its in house counsel less than two weeks before the trial. The attorney, Timothy Coyne, has a long term relationship with the Archdiocese as both in house counsel and the attorney with the firm that handled most Archdiocese matters during the time in question at the trial. According to the Philadelphia paper,

Lynn, who investigated misconduct complaints against priests and recommended their assignments, is accused of conspiracy and child endangerment for allegedly enabling or covering up clergy sex abuse. His attorneys have signaled they may argue he was following the advice of church lawyers.

The trial judge, Common Pleas Court Judge M. Teresa Sarmina, has ordered the archdiocese to be ready to hand over hundreds or thousands of documents, including correspondence between church officials and their lawyers. She is expected to hear arguments on the issue and decide it next week.

This case promises to be an interesting one to watch on a number of levels - institutional responsibility, attorney client relations, vicarious liability, not to mention child abuse and protection. No doubt it could also indicate the viability of the theory of criminal responsibility for covering up abuse of our most vulnerable children.