From Frying Pan To Fire
An agreed stayed six-month suspension with probation has been imposed by the Pennsylvania Supreme Court for an attorney’s misconduct in representing a client who was a plaintiff in a sexual harassment, gender discrimination and hostile work environment case.
Respondent initially referred the client to other counsel under a fee agreement whereby he would assist for 20% of the fee.
Respondent met with the client at her Florida condominium
On December 8, 2018, Respondent went to Ms. Lanham’s Florida condominium to pick up Ms. Lanham for the lunch meeting regarding Ms. Lanham’s case.
Respondent asked to use Ms. Lanham’s bathroom.
Ms. Lanham showed Respondent to the bathroom, which Respondent entered by going through Ms. Lanham’s bedroom.
While in Ms. Lanham’s bedroom, Respondent made an unwelcome verbal sexual advance.
When Lanham became upset with Respondent’s harassing conduct, Respondent told Ms. Lanham to ” lighten up” and Ms. Lanham thereafter went to lunch to discuss Ms. Lanham’s lawsuit against Lumenis.
Following lunch, Respondent drove Ms. Lanham back to her condominium.
Ms. Lanham asked Respondent how to access the docket entries for her New York lawsuit from her computer.
Respondent again entered Ms. Lanham’s condominium and used Ms. Lanham’s computer to show her how to access docket entries for her New York lawsuit.
While in Ms. Lanham’s condominium the second time, Respondent made an unwelcome verbal sexual advance.
After other counsel had filed the case in federal court
On February 8, 2019, at Ms. Lanham’s request, Respondent entered his appearance on behalf of Ms. Lanham as co-counsel in her case against Lumenis in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York.
From time to time after December 8, 2018, Respondent would call Ms. Lanham late at night and early in the morning.
During some telephone discussions with Ms. Lanham, Respondent made unwelcome sexually-explicit statements that did not pertain to the content of Ms. Lanham’s claims against Lumenis.
If Ms. Lanham would testify, she would state that during telephone conversations between Respondent and Ms. Lanham, Respondent would ask Ms. Lanham about giving him “a blow job.”
During a telephone call with Ms. Lanham on April 15, 2019, about the upcoming mediation, Respondent made unwelcome sexually oriented and offensive comments, such as:
a. Respondent ” liked” Ms. Lanham;
b. bantering with Ms. Lanham about whether one of them had “jumped” the other one in Ms. Lanham’s condominium on December 8, 2018;
c. Respondent stating he “was just playing with you, but I would have consummated it. I wouldn’t have just played around” and it was “wishful thinking”;
d. calling Ms. Lanham “my sweetie”;
e. asking Ms. Lanham, “[w]hen I’m prepping you, do you think you’ll work well under me?”; and
f. telling Ms. Lanham, “[y]ou used to have much more of a sense of humor,” in reply to Ms. Lanham’s statement that Respondent’s comments were disrespectful and unwelcome.
During an April 25, 2019 telephone discussion with Ms. Lanham to prepare for an upcoming mediation, Respondent made unwelcome sexually oriented and offensive comments, such as:
a. stating Ms. Lanham “looked so hot” when he met Ms. Lanham for the first time at her Florida condominium;
b. telling Ms. Lanham she wore a “come fuck me” outfit when they first met in Florida;
c. asking Ms. Lanham who was her “favorite lawyer” and suggesting Ms. Lanham should respond, “you, my master”;
d. calling Ms. Lanham “sweetie”; and
e. claiming Ms. Lanham could not be joked with and was too serious when Ms. Lanham replied that Respondent’s comments were unwelcome and unprofessional.
Respondent had a personal interest in continuing to represent Ms. Lanham
Respondent knowingly engaged in a course of conduct intended to harass, burden, and intimidate Ms. Lanham to continue the attorney-client relationship.
Respondent has practiced for 46 years without prior discipline.
In light of the unique facts and circumstances of this case, Respondent’s six-month suspension should be stayed in its entirety, to be followed by a period of six-months probation. Respondent plans to retire within the next two years and close his law firm upon retirement. Respondent has wound down his law practice and is handling only two cases without his law partner, both of which are imminently approaching trial absent dispositive relief or settlement. Neither of the cases involve sexual harassment or vulnerable clients. Respondent has also volunteered to take a class on prohibited sexual harassment to ensure that his misconduct does not recur. A stayed suspension will enable Respondent to complete his open cases and close his practice in an orderly fashion; a consecutive six-month term of probation will ensure the public, profession, and courts are protected from any further instances of Respondent’s misconduct.
(Mike Frisch)