“A Right Wing Nut Job” Gets Reprimanded for Sex With Client

In an appeal of right from a three judge panel, the Virginia Supreme Court affirmed the imposition of a public reprimand for sex with a vulnerable client.

After the representation began on a variety of matters

The conversation began to take on a different tone when Brown and C.C. began discussing her political beliefs, and Brown messaged that he thought she was a “right wing nut job like he is.” C.C. told Brown that she was a libertarian, to which he responded, “I might help you see the error of your ways though [smiling emoji].” C.C. replied, “I’d love to hear about my errors” to which Brown asked, “and some reconditioning?” C.C. answered, “[p]ossibly.”

Immediately after this conversation, C.C. sent Brown a picture of herself with a black eye from 2019. Brown and C.C. discussed the photo, and whether she had used it at the first protective order hearing. C.C. mentioned that M.C. made her delete the photo, and Brown advised that she change her phone passwords. They continued to discuss her divorce case by text, until approximately 11 p.m., when C.C. stopped responding.

After a series of texts

On the morning of May 10, Brown and C.C. discussed a plan to get together “to be social” on the following Tuesday, May 12, 2020. Their conversation turned to the topic of their sexual fantasies, including submission and domination. Brown proceeded to inform C.C. about the differences and gradations of subservience with Brown telling C.C. she “need[ed] a spanking,” and that their conversation was “turning [him] on.” C.C. stated she “just want[ed] to get off” and Brown replied, “I’ll teach you.” She stated, “I just want an orgasm” and Brown replied, “you will get what you want.”

Brown and C.C. continued discussing their sexual fantasies, including C.C. saying “I mean I do love a good rape scenario” before eventually returning to their plans for that Tuesday:
C.C.: Now i want sex. Tyvm
Brown: What are you going to do about it
C.C.: Hook up with someone tomorrow
Brown: lol can’t wait until Tuesday?
C.C.: Oh were gonna f**k at ur office
Brown: or somewhere
We’re going to go somewhere else
C.C.: We are?
Brown: Yeah. I don’t want to be rushed

C.C. asked Brown if this was his “intention the whole time” and he answered, “no. I knew it was possible but wasn’t going to act on it because it wouldn’t be good if it got out. But after talking about it I can’t help myself. We’ve always had a lot of chemistry and tension like that.” Brown and C.C. continued discussing their sexual fantasies, involving Brown’s predilection for domination using rope, and exchanging photographs.

Over the next four hours C.C. and Brown continued discussing their past sexual history and sexual fantasies in graphic detail. At one point, C.C. stated “I need to be penetrated” and Brown responds “yes you need to be penetrated.” They also discussed the possibility of having sex while on illicit drugs, specifically “X Or molly.”

Brown continued the conversation:
Brown: Can you get it?
C.C.: Yes. Im on probabtion though. I was high all last summer on Molly, I was
a skeleton.
Brown: oh yeah don’t f**k with probation
C.C. Have u ever had sex on stuff like that
Brown: yep

The next day, May 11, C.C. reached out to Brown about her divorce case, because M.C. had been texting her. Brown responded “don’t tell him anything about our legal plans. I want it to be a surprise.” They continued to discuss M.C.’s income and child support in C.C.’s case. Throughout the day, and up until the afternoon on May 12, Brown and C.C. continued to exchange texts about their relationship and sexual interests.

The evening of May 12, C.C. and Brown met at a hotel in Fredericksburg, Virginia, purportedly to discuss the allegations that C.C. was posting child pornography to social media. While at the hotel, Brown and C.C. had sex. That evening, a hotel employee who knew [husband] M.C. told him C.C. was there with a man. M.C. sent his private investigator to the hotel to obtain evidence of the encounter. M.C. called the hotel and asked to be connected to Brown’s room; Brown answered and M.C. disconnected the call. After spending two hours with C.C., Brown left the hotel around 6 p.m.

M.C.’s private investigator obtained video of C.C. leaving the hotel at 7:37 p.m. C.C. then messaged M.C. in response to allegations M.C. sent her, denying meeting with Brown at the hotel. Later that evening, C.C. was arrested for DWI. After being released from the jail, C.C. called M.C. back. C.C. told M.C. that her mother had locked her out of the house, but that C.C. “felt that she may have been raped because she couldn’t remember anything, thought she was slipped something.”8 M.C. picked C.C. up and brought her to the hospital but remained outside. According to M.C., C.C. had “rope or fabric burns on her hands and wrists.” C.C. left the  hospital, claiming they did not have “the appropriate kits to do any testing there.” Because the second protective order was in place, M.C. drove C.C. to her mother’s house rather than his home. That evening M.C. emailed Brown demanding that he withdraw as C.C.’s counsel and stating he would be sending an ethics complaint to the Virginia State Bar.

Brown withdrew from the divorce; M.C. filed a bar complaint.

Brown contended that sex with a client is permissible

Brown argues that this Court has authorized sexual relationships with clients by rejecting a proposed rule which would have made all sexual conduct with clients a per se ethical violation. See Virginia State Bar, “Rejected | amendments to Rule 1.8 regarding conflict of interest: prohibited transactions.” (March 22, 2023) https://www.vsb.org/pro‐ guidelines/index.php/rule_changes/item/rule_1.8. We are entirely unpersuaded by that argument; it is fundamentally flawed both as a matter of law and logic. The rejection of a per se rule does not imply that such conduct is always permissible.

Conclusion

The circuit court’s finding that Brown violated Rule 1.7(a)(2) is supported by the record. The finding that Brown added a fault ground for divorce against C.C. and the other findings of fact that Brown takes issue with are likewise supported by the record. Additionally, because the Bar requested no additional relief on appeal, we do not reach the court’s decision with respect to Rule 2.1. As a result, the circuit court’s decision is affirmed.

That sanction

As a sanction, Brown received a public reprimand, with terms, requiring him to retake the Multistate Professional Responsibility Exam and complete 250 hours of community service. If Brown failed to comply with the terms, his license would be suspended for a year and a day.

(Mike Frisch)