Sex Talk And Attempt Draws Short Suspension

An attorney’s misconduct drew a 30-day suspension  from the Minnesota Supreme Court

namely, engaging in explicit sexual conversations with a client, including contemporaneous efforts to meet in person, causing a conflict of interest; failing to recognize that conflict; and attempting to engage in sexual relations with his client contrary to Minn. R. Prof. Conduct 1.8(j). See Minn. R. Prof. Conduct 1.1, 1.7(a)(2), and 8.4(a).

The parties had sought a public reprimand

We issued an order directing the parties to file memoranda of law showing cause, if any there be, why respondent should not be suspended, given the nature and scope of the admitted misconduct. In re Winter, No. A21-0831, Order at 2 (Minn. filed Mar. 4, 2022). The parties have filed their responsive memoranda.

The court rejected the proposed sanction.

Also

Within 1 year of the date of this order, respondent shall file with the Clerk of the Appellate Courts and serve upon the Director proof of successful completion of the written examination required for admission to the practice of law by the State Board of Law Examiners on the subject of professional responsibility. See Rule 4.A.(5), Rules for Admission to the Bar (requiring evidence that an applicant has successfully completed the Multistate Professional Responsibility Examination). Failure to timely file the required documentation shall result in automatic suspension, as provided in Rule 18(e)(3), RLPR. 

MCKEIG, Justice (dissenting).

I respectfully dissent. I believe respondent’s misconduct calls for stronger discipline.

(Mike Frisch)