Sexual Misconduct With Employees Draws Suspension
The Minnesota Supreme Court rejected a proposed agreement and imposed a one-year suspension with fitness for sexual misconduct towards two employees
The Director of the Office of Lawyers Professional Responsibility has filed a petition for disciplinary action alleging that respondent Clayton D. Halunen has committed professional misconduct warranting public discipline. Specifically, the petition alleges that Halunen sexually harassed two men employed by Halunen Law. Halunen committed this misconduct when he was the sole owner and managing partner of the firm. Halunen originally contacted one of the men, who was 19 years old and worked at a fast-food restaurant, using a dating app. When the two met, Halunen encouraged him to apply for a job at his law firm. The second person was a law student whom Halunen initially messaged over social media. He was later hired as a summer extern at Halunen Law. Halunen engaged in repeated acts of unwelcome physical and verbal conduct of a sexual nature with these men. Halunen subjected one of them to more serious repeated acts of unwelcome, sexual contact. See Minn. R. Prof. Conduct 8.4(g), 8.4(h). And Halunen attempted to convince the two employees not to make their allegations public by threatening them with civil action, criminal prosecution, and professional consequences. See Minn. R. Prof. Conduct 8.4(d). Finally, Halunen provided legal advice to one of the employees who was unrepresented and had interests that conflicted with those of Halunen. See Minn. R. Prof. Conduct 4.3(d).
Sanction
We conclude that the appropriate disposition is a 1-year suspension and that Halunen comply with the reinstatement hearing process before reinstatement. The separate concurrence and dissent instead asserts that we should suspend Halunen for 18–24 months.
Justice McKeig
I respectfully concur in part and dissent in part. This case comes before us on the parties’ stipulation for discipline, which asks the court to adopt their agreement that respondent Clayton D. Halunen be suspended from the practice of law for 6 months, placed on probation for 2 years, and waive the requirement that he petition for reinstatement. The court rightly declined to waive the petition-for-reinstatement requirement and rejected the proposed time period of Halunen’s suspension, decisions I concur with. However, I write separately to dissent because, in my view, the severity of Halunen’s misconduct warrants a longer suspension than 1 year. I would suspend Halunen indefinitely with no right to petition for reinstatement for 18–24 months.
For 2½ years, Halunen engaged in a pattern of sexual misconduct involving two subordinates in his law firm. The sexual misconduct began with Halunen’s over-the-clothing groping of a 19-year-old employee. Halunen’s sexual misconduct with this employee escalated into unwanted kissing, aggressive physical touching and groping, soliciting sex through text messages, soliciting explicit photographs from the employee, and sexual relations. This conduct occurred both in and out of the workplace. The employee felt compelled to accept Halunen’s advances because he feared losing his job. After the employee quit his job, he served Halunen’s firm with a demand letter describing the sexual misconduct he experienced. Halunen, knowing the employee was self-represented, threatened him with criminal charges and provided him with unwanted legal advice—including advice not to obtain counsel.
During this same timeframe, Halunen hired a second-year law student as an extern. Halunen communicated with the extern through social media and text messages, and these communications included repeated sexual and salacious comments towards the extern. Halunen took the extern to a mediation out of state and made unwanted sexual advances towards the extern during the trip. A similar situation happened later that summer on a trip to Halunen’s cabin. When the extern did not reciprocate Halunen’s unwanted contact, Halunen sent him a text that seemed to withdraw a tentative job offer and told the extern that he would have to earn a future position with the firm based on his performance After the extern quit, Halunen threateningly contacted the extern repeatedly.
Justice Moore III joined the concurrence/dissent.
Minnesota Lawyer reported on the case. (Mike Frisch)