“Beyond Upset And Disgusted”
The New Jersey Supreme Court has censured an attorney for an email to a client who had just secured a divorce.
As described by the Disciplinary Review Board, the attorney had handled the client’s divorce to a conclusion. He forgave payment of the $100 she owed him that was not covered by her legal services plan.
Then
On October 26, 2018, respondent sent the grievant another e-mail from his law firm address, again with the subject line “Divorce Hearing.” In that correspondence, respondent thanked the grievant for her “nice review,” but also made an inappropriate offer to perform oral sex on her, using extremely graphic language.
A few days later
On October 30, 2018, respondent sent the grievant a final e-mail from his law firm address, again with the subject line “Divorce Hearing,” stating “[h]i, I’m very sorry if I was out of line with my message. I think I got my signals from you crossed. Best regards, Kevin.”
Her bar complaint in part
I’m beyond upset and disgusted, I never gave him a sign of anything. He’s many decades older than me and he was my attorney for God’s sake. I’m scared and always looking at my surroundings since he knows where I live, work and what car I drive since he knows a good chunk of my life due to the divorce proceedings.
His explanation
At the ethics hearing, respondent asserted that, on several occasions during their interactions, the grievant made comments that respondent interpreted as sexually suggestive. He claimed that, about one month into the representation, the grievant began flirting with him, but he never indicated to her that her conduct was inappropriate, because “is flirting inappropriate? I – I don’t know,” and emphasized that he represented her professionally, diligently, and courteously. Respondent testified that the grievant had overtly signaled to him her sexual interest and engaged in flirtatious and suggestive behavior with him. He believed his October 26, 2018 e-mail was a “follow up on what [he] perceived to have been a history of her making advances.”
The DRB
Respondent’s vulgar October 26, 2018 e-mail to the grievant, his divorce client, was derogatory and demeaning, and constituted sexual harassment, a form of gender discrimination. Respondent, thus, violated RPC 3.2 and RPC 8.4(g).
Like the hearing panel, we reject respondent’s hollow claims that he did not intend to cause harm to the grievant, his female client who had finalized her divorce just two days earlier, and believed that the e-mail would be received favorably. Those subjective intentions and beliefs do not obviate the fact that respondent recklessly sent the sexually explicit October 26, 2018 e-mail from his law firm e-mail address, and the grievant asserted that she was harmed. The grievant represented that the e-mail left her shaking and scared, and constantly examining her surroundings because respondent knew her home address, her work address, and the type of car she drove.
The DRB had found that comparable cases had resulted in a reprimand. (Mike Frisch)