He’s Got A Secret
The New Jersey Supreme Court has ordered a one-year suspsnsion of an attorney for misconduct that he engaged in with a divorce client.
Notably, this is a relatively rare instance where the court substantially increased the proposed sanction.
As recounted by the Disciplinary Review Board, his firm assigned him to the matter
A couple of months later, in September 2018, respondent commenced a personal and sexual relationship with the Client while representing her in her divorce. Weinberger’s employment policy forbade sexual relationships with clients and respondent was aware of this policy during the period of his employment.
Respondent and the Client communicated regarding their personal and sexual relationship via a shared Google Docs document (the Document), which was obtained during the investigation of respondent’s misconduct. Respondent confirmed, during the investigation of this matter, that the Document was used to communicate because it was safer than texts and e-mails, which could be seen by his wife or discovered by his employer. The Document contains more than one hundred pages of direct communication between the Client and respondent.
Respondent further confirmed that the Document is authentic, that it was a method of communication used by himself and the Client, and that it contains communications between himself and the Client. The Document includes personal and sexually charged exchanges between the Client and respondent. In the Document, respondent and the Client acknowledge and admit that they were involved in a personal and sexual relationship for a period of more than a year, while respondent was representing the Client in her divorce proceedings. Respondent’s communications also confirm that his personal and sexual relationship with the Client was kept secret from his employer, his wife, and the Client’s family. Respondent admitted in the Document that he believed his personal and sexual relationship with the Client was unethical and could lead to his disbarment if it were made public. Nevertheless, respondent continued with the relationship while simultaneously representing the Client in her divorce proceedings.
Respondent did not withdraw “because he felt that no one else in the firm could do a better job.”
Vulnerablity
Nine years prior to the Client’s divorce proceeding, she had sustained a brain injury in a car accident. During respondent’s representation of the Client, she sought and received psychological counseling and was taking prescription medication for depression. At all material times, respondent was aware of the Client’s psychological and mental issues and her struggle with depression. In fact, in the Document, the Client expressed to respondent her psychological struggles connected to her personal and sexual relationship with him. Specifically, the Client struggled with the fact that respondent was married; the emotional fallout from her failed marriage; the parameters of respondent’s personal and sexual relationship with the Client; the secrecy of the relationship; the impact the relationship would have on respondent if the relationship became public; and the fact that the Client knew that respondent had engaged in prior extramarital affairs.
He was terminated by his firm, apparently for unrelarted reasons.
Misconduct uncovered
On May 18, 2020, the Client committed suicide in a hotel. Subsequently, the Document was found in the electronic devices among the Client’s belongings.
Sanction
We consider, however, that respondent’s misconduct included additional aggravation. We respectfully conclude that, although the Client’s ultimate suicide is tragic, there is no evidence in the record establishing a direct nexus between her death and respondent’s misconduct. However, the Client’s mental health struggles and brain injury predated the representation and improper sexual relationship. In our view, the record clearly establishes that respondent was acutely aware that the Client was emotionally vulnerable, which respondent used to his advantage in manipulating both the Client and his law firm. Specifically, respondent told the Client that no one else in the firm could do a better job than him, knowing that there were other family law practitioners available, and knowing that the Client believed and trusted him. Additionally, knowing that the Client’s financial resources were limited, he intentionally under billed the Client for his services, manipulating the law firm’s business records.
On balance, we determine that the aggravation is so compelling as to require the enhancement of the discipline beyond a censure to a three-month suspension.
(Mike Frisch)