An Ethical Issue That Therapy Can’t Fix

The North Carolina Disciplinary Hearing Commission approved a consent two-year suspension with a possible stay of the second year in a matter where the attorney admitted having sex with a  client in a child custody matter.

The attorney tried to break off the relationship, causing emotional harm to the client.

Remarkably, they sought therapy to deal with their relationship but the therapist declined to counsel an attorney and his client.

Client A reported that she experienced significant emotional distress related to her personal relationship with Brock and his vacillation regarding whether their relationship was to be platonic or romantic.

In late January 2014, Brock and Client A went to a counselor together. The counselor declined to see them further because she was not comfortable with the fact that Brock was Client A’s lawyer.

During the first several months of 2014, Client A expressed to Brock that because interacting with him was emotionally painful-she wanted to hire another lawyer to represent her. Client A asked Brock to refund the attorney’s fees she had paid him so that she could afford to pay another lawyer’s retainer, but he declined to do so.

Brock discouraged Client A from seeking alternate representation, at one point telling her that another lawyer wouldn’t be able to familiarize himlherself with the case in time to meet upcoming deadlines, and at another point telling Client A that he didn’t believe she had any further need for representation in her custody matter.

At the time he discouraged Client A from seeking alternate representation, Brock knew or should have known that if Client A hired another lawyer to take over the case, she was likely to divulge to that lawyer that she had been in a sexual relationship with Brock.

When the client hired new counsel and filed a bar complaint, the attorney did not withdraw or refund the fee. Rather, he falsely attacked the client.

(a) Brock stated that his personal relationship with Client A was “short-lived,” lasting only until December 2013;

(b) Brock stated that he and Client A mutually agreed in December 2013 to terminate the romantic relationship. He stated that Client A later wavered on that decision, but Brock did not. Brock told the Grievance Committee that shortly thereafter, Client A began engaging in “bizarre, obsessive, and stalking-like behavior.” He stated that the contact he had with Client A “after the relationship was terminated was primarily through her bizarre stalking-like behavior … and not any continuation of their personal relationship. “

The attorney apparently has interests unrelated to the practice of law. (Mike Frisch)