Bad Husband, Bad Father, Bad Lawyer

The Arizona Presiding Disciplinary Judge accepted a two-year consent suspension of a control-challenged attorney. 

The misconduct is briefly summarized. In 2014, Mr. Nicholas represented a client in criminal matters involving identity theft, shoplifting, and probation revocation. He repeatedly engaged in a conflict of interest by continuing a sexual relation with this client. To cover his sorties he lied to his wife, ignored that his sexual relationship with his client began after he became her lawyer, and then actively avoided his professional responsibilities. In August of 2014, Respondent fathered a child with the client. He willfully ignored the possibility of his paternity through apparent self interest, avoidance and lack of caring. He avoided his parental responsibilities with a will. The DNA evidence confirmed he was the child’s father in December 2017. As with his professional responsibilities he took no personal responsibilities. The messages between them, that he hid from the State Bar, evidences more than avoidance to his responsibilities as a lawyer but rather blatant disregard for even his own child.

One need not be clairvoyant to recognize by the messages of his client that his use of her had left her betrayed, and the resulting damage to the client-lawyer relationship predictable and impaired. Respondent’s sexual misconduct assured that his representation would be materially limited by the relationship. He did not blink. Instead he actively failed to preserve and produce evidence of text messages between him and the client when he knew the State Bar was investigating this matter.

Mr. Nicholas was on probation with the Member’s Assistance Program in File No. PDJ-2017-9010, which involved Respondent’s criminal assault of his incarcerated client. Like his client in this matter, that client was also helpless and handcuffed to a table when he struck him. Mr. Nicholas violated Rule 41(g) and ER 8.4(b) and (d).

Through MAP, the tools to avoid his misconduct were before him but he demonstrated again that his preference is to embrace his lack of self-control. It is exceedingly serious when an attorney is so lacking in self-control that he has no ability, even when in counseling, to so no let alone stop. His driving desire and lack of control is strong evidence of his complete absence of professionalism.

Two years is enough

The PDJ is mindful that Agreements for Discipline by Consent bring certainty where there is seen and unforeseen uncertainty in aspects of evidence, testimony, and persuasive force. This Agreement provides certainty and requires that Respondent prove by clear and convincing evidence in formal reinstatement proceedings that he is not a danger to the public and should be permitted to return to the practice of law.

The details are set forth in an extensive stipulation.

KTAR beat me to the story. (Mike Frisch)