By The Copy Machine
Missouri Disciplinary Counsel seeks an indefinite suspension of an attorney in its brief to the state Supreme Court
In the instant case, Respondent made repeated conscious choices over four months to flirt with his client, to ask her feelings about being with an older man, to tell her she was attractive, to send over one hundred and fifty personal texts, including several after midnight, to plan and arrange personal meetings, and to invite her to contact him at in the evening hours – after his wife was asleep or when his wife was at a movie. Then, during a text conversation in which AC explained to Respondent that his wife had confronted her about the ongoing relationship, Respondent scheduled the Saturday morning meeting where AC and Respondent met at his copy machine. Just a few days later, Respondent called AC to say: “So, was sort of fun the other day, you know”. AC responded that the situation had made her uncomfortable because her toddler daughter was present. Despite that and other rebuffs and despite knowing that his wife knew about his relationship with AC, Respondent continued to call her for several weeks to invite her to meet with him at a restaurant on Saturdays and to discuss personal relationship issues. As explained by this Court in the Littleton, Howard and Purdy decisions, an actual suspension is necessary to preserve the integrity of the profession.
Respondent was charged with sexual abuse in the second degree and acquitted at a bench trial.
They offered differing account of the copy machine encounter
A.C.’s Version: During Respondent’s criminal trial, A.C. testified that on September 29, 2018, Respondent grabbed A.C.’s hand and started rubbing her hand across his genitals on the outside of his clothing. A.C. pulled her hand away. A.C. could tell that Respondent was semi-aroused. Prior to A.C. leaving Respondent’s office that day, Respondent again grabbed A.C.’s hand in an attempt to place A.C.’s hand on Respondent’s genitals. Record 532.
Respondent’s Version: Respondent stated that on September 29, 2018, A.C. was at Respondent’s office and while they were standing by the copy machine Respondent and A.C. together joined hands and very briefly together maneuvered their jointly held hands to the area on Respondent’s trousers above his genitals and they jointly rubbed that area for a few seconds. Record 533
The brief notes that the attorney was licensed in 1977, before the client was born
The charges relate to Respondent’s actions to establish a personal and sexual relationship with his client, A.C. In his Answer, Respondent described his conduct as a “foolish” event happening on “one and only one occasion” “over a period of a few seconds” after A.C. had “led him on.” Record 18-19. Respondent added that “From time-to-time Respondent may have texted A.C. but the text messages generally had to do with her criminal cases.” Record 20-21
He stipulated to the charges
Respondent has fully and freely cooperated in the investigation of this matter. On April 3, 2019, the day after the Circuit Attorney filed the Information, Respondent self-reported the matter to the Office of Chief Disciplinary Counsel. Respondent has never been the subject of discipline imposed on him by the Supreme Court of Missouri or any other jurisdiction. Nor has he been the subject of sanctions imposed by a state or federal court. Respondent enjoys a good reputation as a citizen and attorney. These factors balance each other so that, after their consideration, an actual suspension remains fitting.
Oral argument is set for November 8, 2023. Respondent’s brief is not posted yet. (Mike Frisch)