Don’t Believe In Magic
The Arizona Presiding Disciplinary Judge approved a 30-day suspension and probation for a year of an attorney who initially had resisted a client’s interest in a sexual relationship.
He agreed to the relationship shortly thereafter and compounded the problem by accepting a $10,000 loan from the client.
Mr. Ketcham was retained by the complainant on November 20, 2009, with a memorandum of engagement defining the scope of representation. His billing statements demonstrated that his legal services spanned from November 20, 2009 through January 2012.
On December 7, 2009, complainant invited Mr. Ketcham to a business meeting over dinner. On December 8, 2009, Mr. Ketcham informed complainant by e-mail that any romantic involvement would violate the rules of the State Bar. Emails were exchanged and as no romantic relationship had yet occurred, he directed the complainant to forward the redraft letter, and stated “at this point, I can still be your attorney.” Complainant responded that she wanted to move forward on a personal level, but offered to proceed on a friendly professional level as client/attorney in the alternative.
On December 16, 2009, Mr. Ketcham and the complainant entered into a sexual relationship. On December 17, 2009, Mr. Ketcham reiterated his concern about violating the ethical rules, but failed to explain why such a relationship with a client would violate the rules. One year into their sexual relationship, complainant volunteered to loan Mr. Ketcham $10,000.00 (interest free, unsecured, and with no deadline) to assist him with his child custody proceedings. Mr. Ketcham accepted the offer but failed to advise the client to seek independent legal advice and never obtained her informed consent.
The romantic relationship ended on January 18, 2012 for reasons unrelated to Mr. Ketcham’s legal representation. On January 19, 2012, complainant terminated Mr. Ketcham. On February 2, 2012, complainant directed Mr. Ketcham to repay the loan by February 9, 2012. Mr. Ketcham sought to offset attorney fees owed him for $1590. Complainant agreed to exchange checks instead.
The complainant was the widow of a University of Arizona professor. The representation involved his intellectual property and a manuscript.
The emails between the two are set forth in the pleadings.
One from her to him suggests that they “sacrifice our perfect business relationship for a more personal, magical one.”
The magic ended badly and the bar complaint ensued. (Mike Frisch)