A lawyer who alleged he unknowingly waived a hearing to determine whether he should be involuntarily committed for psychiatric treatment for 20 days cannot sue the county or state-appointed attorney who represented him, the Third Circuit has ruled.

In T.R. v. Havens, T.R. alleged Delaware County and T.R.'s state-appointed attorney for his commitment hearing, Donald Havens, had a policy of Havens not actually meeting with those facing extensions of involuntary commitment, but rather of simply eavesdropping on the patient's talk with a psychiatrist to determine whether the patient waived the hearing.

T.R., an attorney, said he thought that when he met with a psychiatrist after a few days of involuntary commitment and agreed that he would follow the psychiatrist's treatment plan, it meant that he was going to be released, not that he was waiving a hearing and agreeing to 20 days' further commitment. Havens was listening to the conversation and when he heard T.R. agree to the treatment plan, he did not meet with T.R. in person, according to court documents in the case. Havens had said he felt that practice was more therapeutic for the patient, according to court documents.