Now, state regulators want the state Supreme Court to scold the lawyer for the hoax. Stephen Hurley hired a private investigator to trick the boy into swapping his computer for a new laptop.

The case illustrates what the American Bar Association says has been a major debate in legal circles in recent years: Can lawyers ethically participate in covert activities?

The Oregon Supreme Court set off a similar debate in 2000 when it reprimanded a lawyer who posed as a doctor in phone calls to an insurance company he was planning to sue.

Hurley's lawyer, Claude Covelli, said his client did nothing wrong in supervising an undercover investigation to collect evidence, similar to sting operations conducted by law enforcement officers investigating civil rights complaints.

But a complaint filed by a state disciplinary board says Hurley broke rules that prohibit lawyers from engaging in "dishonesty, fraud, deceit or misrepresentation" by approving the hoax.

Supporters say Hurley, who has represented everyone from former University of Wisconsin football player Ron Dayne to former Gov. Scott McCallum, is being unfairly targeted.

"I certainly wouldn't be proud of taking advantage of a teenager," said Jack King, spokesman for the National Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers. "But I don't feel the guy did anything unethical as far as the professional responsibilities rules go."

"You have been selected to receive a brand new Hewlett Packard laptop computer, free of charge" in exchange for turning over a computer, the letter said. "The new computer is your reward for participation." The letter was signed "Glen Sheridan."

Glen later traveled to the boy's home in Indiana, where he had moved, to make the swap. His mother soon feared they were tricked and alerted authorities.

A defense analyst discovered hundreds of pornographic images on the computer, including 28 images involving children. Hurley claimed the images showed the boy accessed child pornography and learned about sex on his own and not through Sussman.

The evidence was never introduced at trial. A judge ruled that pornography viewed by the boy in 2004 was not relevant to assaults that happened at least two years earlier.

Hurley, who did not return phone or e-mail messages, argued in court documents in 2005 that the hoax was the only way he could obtain the computer and perhaps evidence to exonerate his client.

"Given that the defense does not have the police at its disposal, this was the only means to obtain this exculpatory evidence," his law firm wrote in a motion. "The defense was correct in its instinct as the computer did contain relevant pornography."

Other defense lawyers called those steps impractical and the use of deception justified, saying it was no different than a prosecutor who oversees undercover police operations.

"There is no comparison between those lawful investigative activities and a private attorney's use of a sophisticated trick, without any court involvement whatsoever, to dupe a child witness in a criminal case out of his private computer files," he said.

This is cache, read story here