Acquitted Of Crime, Attorney Discipline Still At Issue

Joseph Neill maintains a solo general legal practice in St. Louis while also working for the St. Louis sheriff’s department. The chief disciplinary counsel sought to discipline Neill for having a sexual relationship with a client. In 2003, A.C. retained Neill to assist her with a felony charge. In 2016, she consulted with Neill regarding an outstanding warrant from her failure to complete probation successfully. In 2018, A.C. was arrested during a traffic stop as a result of the warrant. Neill represented her and successfully arranged for her probation to be terminated. He also agreed to help her with the traffic charges that resulted in her arrest on the warrant. While the traffic charges remained pending, Neill invited A.C. to his office in the evening. Neill drank during the meeting and offered A.C. a beer. He told A.C. he found her attractive and asked how she felt about being with an older man. Neill sent A.C. 150 personal text messages in the months following the meeting. He described the texts as flirting. The texts ranged from Neill asking A.C. to lunch or to meet up to Neill telling A.C. he was thinking about her and asking A.C. if she was still enjoying the shower. The texts also show Neill offering A.C. money. Neill’s wife subsequently confronted A.C. about the text messages. A.C. contends that, at a meeting at Neill’s office, he twice grabbed her hand and attempted to have her rub his genitals. Neill contends the rubbing was brief and consensual. A.C. then began recording her phone calls with Neill, who acknowledged his wife knew about their relationship but stated they “should be ok” as long as they were not on the phone. He also stated he would like to get together with A.C. Friday night or Saturday and indicated his wife would be at a movie on Friday night. A.C., however, never met with Neill in person again. A.C. discussed Neill’s conduct with law enforcement. He was charged with second-degree sexual harassment. He was later acquitted of the charges. Neill self-reported to the chief disciplinary counsel and fully cooperated with the investigation. Neill admitted his conduct constituted sexual harassment of his client and was prejudicial to the administration of justice. He further admitted he created a conflict of interest by placing his personal interests over those of his client. Following a hearing, a disciplinary hearing panel recommended a stayed suspension with probation. Neill accepted the recommendation. The chief disciplinary counsel rejected it, asserting Neill should be suspended and probation is not appropriate. 

 

This case presents two questions for the Court – whether Neill violated the rules of professional responsibility and, if so, what discipline, if any, is appropriate.