Sex with Client Draws Suspension
The Missouri Supreme Court has ordered an indefinite suspension with no right to apply before six months for sex with a client.
The court’s order does not set out the underlying facts.
Disciplinary Counsel’s brief states the the client was referred to the attorney by a battered women’s shelter.
After a stressful court encounter in the domestic case, the brief states
Soon after arriving on the evening of January 17, Respondent told CD that her case was stressful and hard on him. He then began talking to CD about troubles in his own marriage and his relationship with his wife. App. 133. Respondent and CD engaged in sexual intercourse that evening at CD’s home. App. 134.
Respondent again had sexual intercourse with CD at her home on January 23, January 28 and January 31, 2013. App. 134. The sexual relationship as well as the nightly texting about personal matters between Respondent and CD continued for a period of four or five months. App. 136.
While not in a relationship, CD felt that Respondent was monopolizing her time. App. 137. Respondent would drive by CD’s house on multiple occasions. Respondent cleared CD’s driveway after a snowstorm in February 2013 while CD was in Arizona for a court hearing. App. 137. Respondent cut a tree down in CD’s front yard. App. 137. Respondent came to CD’s home to spend the evening with her on Valentine’s Day 2013. App. 137.
CD became concerned that Respondent would not represent her zealously if she were to stop the personal relationship with him. App. 137-138.
Respondent and CD engaged in sexual intercourse again on February 5, 2013 at CD’s home. App. 138. Prior to Respondent leaving that day, CD spoke to him about the domestic violence that she had previously gone through with JZ and how devastating it was to her and that her relationship with Respondent was beginning to feel the same way. App. 138-139. CD testified as follows to the Disciplinary Hearing Panel: “I felt suffocated. I felt completely out of control. I felt like I was being victimized all over again….I’m feeling like I am being victimized by my lawyer, and I feel like my time was begin monopolized by him in the morning, nights, nights that I could have spent with someone else that wasn’t my attorney.” App. 139.
On February 9, 2013, Respondent texted CD, stating that his wife was away for the day and that he was home alone not feeling well. Respondent and CD began a video chat, during which Respondent showed CD his erect penis. App. 140.
He admitted the conduct
“I wish I had a good answer at this point. I know that hindsight is 20/20. If I could go back and undo it, I would. It was the single stupidest thing that I think I’ve ever done in my life. I’m kind of that guy that I don’t ever get in trouble for anything, I’m usually pretty straight forward, and I’ve not ever been in a situation like this. She was pretty, she was hitting on me, I fell into that trap, and I did it. I shouldn’t have done it.” App. 248.
A civil suit by CD was resolved.
Disciplinary Counsel’s view as to the attorney’s claims
The record shows another story. CD testified that Respondent was not a mere willing victim of her seduction. She portrays Respondent as an aggressor, who lost interest in her legal needs after she stopped the sexual relationship. He continued to seek a sexual relationship with her after she told him the relationship was upsetting her. Respondent argues he did not violate Rule 4-1.7 because – in his view – his affair did not cause CD to lose custody. No harm, so no foul. But Respondent consciously ignored CD’s obvious fragile and vulnerable state. Days after she told him that she felt Respondent was victimizing her, he sent her explicit video images of himself. He did not address the embarrassing and potential evidentiary risks to CD’s bargaining position and reputation, created by his sexual relationship with her.
(Mike Frisch)