Inappropriate But Not Criminal Conduct Draws Reprimand

The North Dakota Supreme Court has reprimanded an attorney

Slyva worked for the Fargo Public Defender’s office from January 2021 to February 2022. Approximately two months before the conduct in this matter, Slyva put his arm around a client at the jail. At the hearing, Slyva admitted his action was a foolish decision and that his conduct was inappropriate. Slyva’s supervisor testified that jail officials investigated this interaction and determined no crime had taken place. His supervisor also testified that as a result of this incident, the Public Defender’s office prohibited Slyva from having that type of face-to-face in-person meeting with any clients. He was permitted to have in-person meetings with a glass partition between him and the client.

Despite this restriction, Slyva had the same type of face-to-face in-person visit with the client in this matter and other clients on February 9, 2022 at the Cass County jail. The client was uncomfortable because of Sylva’s questions about her relationship status and because he asked her on a date. He told the client that their conversation should “stay here because I have control of your next court date.” Slyva denied asking her on a date and claimed she misunderstood him.

Because the client was uncomfortable with Slyva, she asked the corrections deputies to listen to her phone calls with Slyva. She also filed a statement about the incident with the jail. Jail officials investigated the interaction and determined no crime had taken place. Slyva’s supervisor at the Public Defender office testified the physical contact with a female client was inappropriate and alarming because it was a female client who was incarcerated, and therefore, vulnerable. The Public Defender’s office terminated Slyva shortly after it learned of this incident. Based on the testimony, the hearing panel concluded the client’s testimony regarding the visit and the questions asked during the visit was credible.

Sanction

When considering an appropriate sanction, the hearing panel considered the aggravating factors under N.D. Stds. Imposing Lawyer Sanctions 9.22 of a selfish motive and the vulnerability of the victim. It also considered mitigating factors under N.D. Stds. Imposing Lawyer Sanctions 9.22 of an absence of prior disciplinary record, a full and free disclosure to Disciplinary Board or cooperative attitude toward proceedings, inexperience in the practice of law, and imposition of other penalties or sanctions. The hearing panel recommended Slyva be reprimanded by the Supreme Court. It also recommended Slyva pay the costs and expenses of these disciplinary proceedings in the amount of $5,961.

The court adopted the proposed discipline. (Mike Frisch)