No Per Se Rule

The Pennsylvania Supreme Court has disbarred an attorney  for misconduct that included “inappropriate remarks” to a client and “five consensual sexual encounters” during the course of the representation.

The client had consulted him after she received a foreclosure notice on the marital property due to her ex-husband’s failure to honor an obligation to pay property taxes. The attorney handled a breach of contract for a non-refundable retainer paid by her parents.

The client suffered financially due to the death of her second husband and the obligation to support her four children. The attorney “agreed to loan his credit cards to [the client]  for goods and services in an attempt to keep her from telling his wife about their affair.”

The attorney persuaded the client to hire another of his clients to perform repairs on her home. She later learned that she was charged approximately $30,000 for the work.

He then sued her for unpaid fees but later “admitted that the billing for legal fees was inaccurate. The complaint was never served.”

The client sued him, his wife and his law firm for, among other things, conversion and professional liability for the sexual relationship. The attorney admitted the relationship and countersued for unpaid fees.

He attempted to have her agree to not cooperate with bar authorities as part of a tentative settlement of the civil action. The proposed revision to the agreement was removed. He paid her a $26,000 settlement.

The hearing committee found that the client was vulnerable and recommended disbarment. The board in turn made the same sanction recommendation. 

The court agreed 

His concern for how his misconduct affected his life, rather than how it affected his client’s life or the reputation of the legal profession is telling. [His] statement that he should not be alone with a female reflects a tendency to make excuses for his conduct (i.e. he sees himself as weak) rather than an admission of an ethical failing on his part.

The court specifically eschewed a per se disbarment rule for sex with a client but found that sanction appropriate on these facts. Rather, the business dealings and “abuse of the legal system” contributed to the conclusion that the misconduct  was “egregious.” (Mike Frisch)