NationStates Jolt Archive

I think this is a faulty decision by the ethics committee.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/odd_stripper_legal_fees

He wasnt found guilty of any crime and he bartered a legal service for a legal service. Had the woman been a mechanic and couldnt pay the bill and she offered to fix his car instead, would he also have been suspended 15 months?

I think as a lawyer, he should have known better than to put himself into a position where he could be accused of sexual assault by a client. It makes me question his abilities as a lawyer.

Or maybe he aspires to be President. ;)

Most Bar Association codes have a 'good character' requirement. So yeah. They can fuck you up for things like this, or for any range of things that would throw the legal profession into disrepute.

Teachers Associations also generally have these sorts of powers/requirements.

It's a big reason I'm against self-regulation.

Most Bar Association codes have a 'good character' requirement. So yeah. They can fuck you up for things like this, or for any range of things that would throw the legal profession into disrepute.


Whats the disrepute part? Its perfectly legal to barter legal service for legal services as long as you pay your taxes, where is the violation?

he received sexually oriented services in exchange for his fees. Illegal? No, but I can see why the ethics committee had issue with it..

Ethics rules are tricky about receiving any non monetary compensation in lieu of fees, this just adds another layer to it.

Ethics rules are tricky about receiving any non monetary compensation in lieu of fees, this just adds another layer to it.

But why should it add another layer, because it has the word sex in it? It wasnt sexual action with a prostitute, it was in theory for a strip dance which is perfectly legal. Its sexual content should be irrelevant.

But why should it add another layer, because it has the word sex in it? It wasnt sexual action with a prostitute, it was in theory for a strip dance which is perfectly legal. Its sexual content should be irrelevant.

the fact that it's legal doesn't, per se, make it ethical. If you tell me something in confidence, and I repeat that to a third person, that's not a criminal act. First amendment and all.

However it is an eggregious breach of attorney ethics, for which I should be summarily disbarred.

You should not use legality as the litmus test for ethical behavior.

Whats the disrepute part? Its perfectly legal to barter legal service for legal services as long as you pay your taxes, where is the violation?

This is what I am thinking. Nothing wrong with the barter system. Only reason that the government for example may not like it is for tax reasons.

In case anyone hasn't read the full article, the girl did make a sexual assault report. True or not, the lawyers actions in bartering for said service makes it look very bad on him.

the fact that it's legal doesn't, per se, make it ethical. If you tell me something in confidence, and I repeat that to a third person, that's not a criminal act. First amendment and all.

However it is an eggregious breach of attorney ethics, for which I should be summarily disbarred.

You should not use legality as the litmus test for ethical behavior.

Excellent point. Ok what ethics were violated from getting a dance in payment from the stripper? If she had paid him in full, and he had taken her money and went down to the club and paid for a strip dance from her would that have been unethical as well? What if it was a year later? Is it ethical for lawyers to go to strip joints period?

In case anyone hasn't read the full article, the girl did make a sexual assault report. True or not, the lawyers actions in bartering for said service makes it look very bad on him.

Ahh well maybe I should read the article. Well that is a different story. The guy should be in trouble.

In case anyone hasn't read the full article, the girl did make a sexual assault report. True or not, the lawyers actions in bartering for said service makes it look very bad on him.

No criminal charges were filed. But had the woman not complained, would it still be an ethics violation?

No criminal charges were filed. But had the woman not complained, would it still be an ethics violation?

I work in an industry with ethic rules (insurance). It would be a violation in my industry and I am sure according to the bar it is there. I don't personally think it should but when you work in an industry that has ethics rules you have to abide by them. Don't like it then maybe a different line of work is in order.

I work in an industry with ethic rules (insurance). It would be a violation in my industry and I am sure according to the bar it is there. I don't personally think it should but when you work in an industry that has ethics rules you have to abide by them. Don't like it then maybe a different line of work is in order.

What ethics rule would be violated? Are insurance agents allowed to go to strip clubs? If you go into a strip club and you see one of your clients stripping on stage are you required to cover your eyes and run out of the room?

What ethics rule would be violated? Are insurance agents allowed to go to strip clubs? If you go into a strip club and you see one of your clients stripping on stage are you required to run out of the room?

The particular rule violation is the method of payment. I suspect it is the same for lawyers.

The particular rule violation is the method of payment. I suspect it is the same for lawyers.

Same question i asked of Neo. If your client paid you in full, then you went to her strip club with her money and paid for a lapdance is that an ethics violation?

If you could prove the client paid you in a regular manner then it wouldn't be a problem.

If you could prove the client paid you in a regular manner then it wouldn't be a problem.

Even though, when all was said and done both methods end up with identical payment and service?(tax on the barter issue aside)

Whats the disrepute part? Its perfectly legal to barter legal service for legal services as long as you pay your taxes, where is the violation?
Don't be a pedantic ass.

Good character requirements are not your 'letter of the law' (har har) sorts of things. They are ephemeral, based on community standards, and do not have to be violations of legal principles.

Lawyers already enjoy a rather coloured reputation. I can see how the argument could be made that this would further damage the reputation of the profession as a whole.

It can also be argued that you signed up for this sort of regulation when you became a lawyer...take it or leave.

No criminal charges were filed. But had the woman not complained, would it still be an ethics violation?

Investigations by the ethics committee don't usually happen unless there has been some sort of complaint. That doesn't mean a violation hasn't occured.

Even though, when all was said and done both methods end up with identical payment and service?

Possible, however there is a line that has to be drawn. If the lawyer charged her $1000 for his services and she wrote a check. He cashes it and then goes down to buy $1000 of lap dances then so what. He got paid the regular way in my scenerio and what he does legally with his money after that is his/her business.

What if she owned a business selling whatever items/service. He goes down and buys exactly the amount she paid him. It is the same thing.

Even though, when all was said and done both methods end up with identical payment and service?(tax on the barter issue aside)

You trying to weasel out of what was clearly an unwise action that put the person in question in a bad situation and would raise the eyebrows of anyone with a whit of common sense is....is almost lawyerly.

Except that sort of weaseling doesn't work in these situations.

It looks bad. That can often be enough to get you sanctioned in some fashion.

Investigations by the ethics committee don't usually happen unless there has been some sort of complaint. That doesn't mean a violation hasn't occured.

You didnt answer the question. If the woman hadnt complained and was a happy consenting adult in the matter but the agreement had been discovered by other means, has an ethics violation occured?

Possible, however there is a line that has to be drawn. If the lawyer charged her $1000 for his services and she wrote a check. He cashes it and then goes down to buy $1000 of lap dances then so what. He got paid the regular way in my scenerio and what he does legally with his money after that is his/her business.

What if she owned a business selling whatever items/service. He goes down and buys exactly the amount she paid him. It is the same thing.

Generally what a lawyer does in his or own free time is unimportant as long as it doesn't touch on his or her legal practice. So, you like getting spanked in your basement on Saturdays? Cool. You like getting your CLIENTS to spank you in your basement on Saturdays?

Not cool.

Don't be a pedantic ass.

Why are you behaving in such an angry fashion at me? I already conceded to Neo that he had raised a valid point inn this issue and then you follow up with insults on a point i politely conceded.

Your additional posts on the matter continue to have a very angry tone as well. OK you win the angry contest i surrender congrats :P

You didnt answer the question. If the woman hadnt complained and was a happy consenting adult in the matter but the agreement had been discovered by other means, has an ethics violation occured?

I did answer the question.

If the agreement hadn't been discovered, it means only that. There was still a very, very clear ethical breach here. Basically at the top of 'shit you don't do as a lawyer' is fucking around with your clients and making shady financial deals. Even if you're a solo practicioner. He managed to do both.

Why are you behaving in such an angry fashion at me? I already conceded to Neo that he had raised a valid point inn this issue and then you follow up with insults on a point i politely conceded.

Your additional posts on the matter continue to have a very angry tone as well. OK you win the angry contest i surrender congrats :P

You don't know my angry tone. Trust me, this isn't it.

But if you want to run away and cry, that's fine too.

Generally what a lawyer does in his or own free time is unimportant as long as it doesn't touch on his or her legal practice. So, you like getting spanked in your basement on Saturdays? Cool. You like getting your CLIENTS to spank you in your basement on Saturdays?

Not cool.

I understand the point and realize that this is the accepted general rule. I also agree this isn't a good idea. But I think what the poster is trying to determine is if they have a right to discipline him legally when in the eyes of the "law" it could not be illegal. If that makes sense. However working in a industry that has ethics I agree with your point on how it is a bit arbitrary at times. Best just to steer clear of situations even if they are legal I say.

I understand the point and realize that this is the accepted general rule. I also agree this isn't a good idea. But I think what the poster is trying to determine is if they have a right to discipline him legally when in the eyes of the "law" it could not be illegal. If that makes sense. However working in a industry that has ethics I agree with your point on how it is a bit arbitrary at times. Best just to steer clear of situations even if they are legal I say.

Once again, keep in mind. This is a self-regulating profession. Going on about 'the right to discipline' is sort of pointless. The right to discipline is written into self-regulation.

A lawyer can still be held accountable for criminal acts or civil wrongs...breaches of statutes, what have you. However, no one else has the power to decide who gets to be a lawyer, and who can remain. The legal profession decides that for itself.

It's a moot point as to whether the action triggering discipline is 'legal' or not.

What you should be debating is whether or not the profession should in fact have this power at all. In which case you still need to go beyond simple legalistic arguments.

I did answer the question.

If the agreement hadn't been discovered, it means only that. There was still a very, very clear ethical breach here. Basically at the top of 'shit you don't do as a lawyer' is fucking around with your clients and making shady financial deals.

I still dont clearly understand what he did wrong that he even needed to hide. What exactly made his deal shady as you call it? Because it involved sex? Like i asked before, if she had been a mechanic and she fixed his car for equal value would that also have been an ethics violation according to the Bar?

No criminal charges were filed. But had the woman not complained, would it still be an ethics violation?

Primarily, yes. There are reasons money why exists as a universal medium of exchange, and this is one of them. A money charge would have meant records of the exchange, services for cash, and receipts. Unless the lawyer didn't record it of course, which is tax evasion, but that's a different story. The records would then show a service paid for. Direct service for service exchange in an informal trade like this means no records of payment, and allows for possible abuse by a claim by the lawyer that no payment was received.

It's one of the reasons for ethics violations in this scenario. There's others, but I'm too tired to list them now.

I still dont clearly understand what he did wrong that he even needed to hide. What exactly made his deal shady as you call it? Because it involved sex? Like i asked before, if she had been a mechanic and she fixed his car would that also have been an ethics violation according to the Bar?

Ok, there are a few things that are problematic with this scenario.

First of all, I'm not sure if this is a solo practice or not. Let's assume it's not, and the fellow getting his knob shined (through his pants mind you) is responsible to partners for a share of his income. Are they getting their cut of the lap dances? Screwing your partners by making backroom deals is frowned upon...especially if he was scooping her business off the clock despite her being a client of the firm in the first place. There are any number of scenarios I could work out that would end in him screwing the people he works with by bartering...sex or not.

Second, as a lawyer, you are in a very unique relationship with your client. We've characterised it as a fiduciary relationship (though I'm not sure how far the yanks take that). That means that you actually have to completely subsume your desires/wants/needs to your clients. You cannot act in your own self-interest...you must in all things act entirely in the best interests of your client. I don't care how you might want to spin this as the person doing it, even the appearance of a fiduciary breach is enough to get you into serious shit.

Third, the special 'nature' of the services cannot be compared to a mechanic fixing your car for some coffee-table legal advice. Not when the discussion is an ethical one, rooted in the particular norms and moral codes of the area you're practicing in UNLESS that area really sees no qualitative difference between the two. Whether you or I, as individuals agree, this is sort of a 'moral tyranny of the majority' situation.

You asked if there would have been an ethics violation had the woman not complained....I answered yes.

I want to qualify that with 'everything's legal if you don't get caught'.

Ethically, the breach exists. How that actually plays out in reality though generally means that the breach itself does not in fact exist until someone catches you at it, and decides to do something about it. The breach isn't sitting there in the ether just waiting to pounce.

Remember, you can represent criminals up to and including mobsters and child molesters, but if you get paid in lapdances that's just going too far.

:D

Even though, when all was said and done both methods end up with identical payment and service?(tax on the barter issue aside)

You can't really discard the tax issue.

Most Bar Association codes have a 'good character' requirement. So yeah. They can fuck you up for things like this, or for any range of things that would throw the legal profession any further into disrepute.

Teachers Associations also generally have these sorts of powers/requirements.

It's a big reason I'm against self-regulation.

Edit mine, and too good to pass up.

"Unethical" and "illegal" don't always coincide. When sex enters an equation, it's possible to conclude that, while not illegal, the exchange may cross the lines of professional ethics. Also, it opens the door to accusations of sexual assault and harassment.

You can't really discard the tax issue.

Also very true.

I did answer the question.

If the agreement hadn't been discovered, it means only that. There was still a very, very clear ethical breach here.

How so? Leaving aside the accusation of sexual assault and focusing solely on the factor of bartering her services as a stripper for his services as a lawyer no one has explained HOW it's any sort of an ethics breach, let alone a clear one. What PRECISELY was unethical about it?

The real, full story can be found here (http://www.iardc.org/04CH0114HBdRpt.html). WARNING this includes some discussion of specific sexual assault (which includes references to naughty parts).

The short version:

NATURE OF THE CASE: 1) representing a client where the representation may be materially limited by the lawyer's own interest; 2) failing to withdraw when the lawyer knew or reasonably should have known that continued employment will result in a violation of the Rules; 3) overreaching the attorney-client relationship; 4) breaching the fiduciary duties owed to his client; 5) committing a criminal act that reflects adversely on the lawyer's honesty, trustworthiness or fitness as a lawyer; 6) engaging in conduct involving dishonesty, fraud, deceit or misrepresentation; 7) engaging in conduct prejudicial to the administration of justice; and 8) engaging in conduct which tends to defeat the administration of justice or bring the courts or the legal profession into disrepute

I have no problem with this guy being disciplined.

Primarily, yes. There are reasons money why exists as a universal medium of exchange, and this is one of them. A money charge would have meant records of the exchange, services for cash, and receipts. Unless the lawyer didn't record it of course, which is tax evasion, but that's a different story. The records would then show a service paid for. Direct service for service exchange in an informal trade like this means no records of payment, and allows for possible abuse by a claim by the lawyer that no payment was received.

That seems simple enough to resolve. Simply write a receipt along the lines of:

(Service you provided) $X.XX, (Service received in exchange) valued at $X.XX

All parties involved affix signatures. How is that any different than a receipt reflecting a service in exchange for cash?

Ok, there are a few things that are problematic with this scenario.

First of all, I'm not sure if this is a solo practice or not. Let's assume it's not, and the fellow getting his knob shined (through his pants mind you) is responsible to partners for a share of his income. Are they getting their cut of the lap dances? Screwing your partners by making backroom deals is frowned upon...especially if he was scooping her business off the clock despite her being a client of the firm in the first place. There are any number of scenarios I could work out that would end in him screwing the people he works with by bartering...sex or not.

Then he would be liable to personally pay their share of the cash value. If frex he preformed a service valued at $500 and she paid him with $400 cash and $100 worth of stripping and he owes his partners 10% then he is still liable to his partners for $50 even if he has to take it out of his own pocket.

Third, the special 'nature' of the services cannot be compared to a mechanic fixing your car for some coffee-table legal advice. Not when the discussion is an ethical one, rooted in the particular norms and moral codes of the area you're practicing in UNLESS that area really sees no qualitative difference between the two. Whether you or I, as individuals agree, this is sort of a 'moral tyranny of the majority' situation.

Why can't you? Of course there is no qualitative difference, both fixing a car and stripping are services that can be legally provided for cash.

You can't really discard the tax issue.

See my receipt example. If that were done what tax issue would there be? If I have a receipt showing that I received $100 worth of meals/lap dances/shoes/magic acts/whatever in exchange for $100 worth of what ever goods or services I was offering couldn't that $100 still be taxed as income?

could the lawyer say he was trying to get a personal unerstanding of the client

That seems simple enough to resolve. Simply write a receipt along the lines of:

(Service you provided) $X.XX, (Service received in exchange) valued at $X.XX

All parties involved affix signatures. How is that any different than a receipt reflecting a service in exchange for cash?

I don't ever recall receipts being used in barter trades, informal as they usually are. Assuming what ifs doesn't solve the question at hand however. Cat-Tribe lists the rest of the problems rather nicely.

Then he would be liable to personally pay their share of the cash value. If frex he preformed a service valued at $500 and she paid him with $400 cash and $100 worth of stripping and he owes his partners 10% then he is still liable to his partners for $50 even if he has to take it out of his own pocket. Why are you trying to wiggle him out of this?

You are not a lawyer. Thus, you are not bound by the particular code of ethics of the Bar in question. You have absolutely NO say in that code, either in its formation or its administration. That's the bald truth of the matter. This is a self-regulating profession.

Part of that ethical code says you don't make shady financial deals. Period. There's absolutely no justification for making such deals, especially in this case.



Why can't you? Of course there is no qualitative difference, both fixing a car and stripping are services that can be legally provided for cash.
Stop talking about what is legal and what isn't. That isn't the point here. The code says, don't mix sex and business, in any capacity, period. Why? Because the moral norms of the community have no trouble differentiating between services such as mechanical work, and stripping.

This is not the place for legal wrangling, or nitpicking. It's a place for broad strokes, for gut feelings, for common sense. That's what we're talking about when we discuss self-regulating bodies who enforce an ethical code.

I think as a lawyer, he should have known better than to put himself into a position where he could be accused of sexual assault by a client. It makes me question his abilities as a lawyer.

Or maybe he aspires to be President. ;)

I think of it as more a punishment for incompetence than lack of ethics. Every lawyer should have to defend himself from such a charge just to prove he can. If this lawyer was a smarter man he could have gotten himself off.

Stop talking about what is legal and what isn't. That isn't the point here. The code says, don't mix sex and business, in any capacity, period. Why? Because the moral norms of the community have no trouble differentiating between services such as mechanical work, and stripping.

This is not the place for legal wrangling, or nitpicking. It's a place for broad strokes, for gut feelings, for common sense. That's what we're talking about when we discuss self-regulating bodies who enforce an ethical code.

We're talking about licensing lawyers. If this isn't the place for legal wrangling and nitpicking then what is?

We're talking about licensing lawyers. If this isn't the place for legal wrangling and nitpicking then what is?

Wow.

You folks REALLY, REALLY don't get it. Or are trying awfully hard to be obtuse.

Or maybe you think you're making a clever joke.

There is a difference between the practice of the law, and entering the legal profession.

I think of it as more a punishment for incompetence than lack of ethics. Every lawyer should have to defend himself from such a charge just to prove he can. If this lawyer was a smarter man he could have gotten himself off.

Wasn't part of the problem that he did in fact get off?

He's not in a fucking court defending himself, using strict rules of evidence. This is an adminstrative body specifically designated to enforce an ethical code. I can't see any amount of excuses, legal or not, that he could raise to get himself out of the idiotic situation he put himself in.

Let me explain it another way. Say a lawyer murders his wife. Goes to jail. Gets out. Would you assume he would no longer be allowed to practice the law? You'd be wrong to assume such. The fact of his criminal conviction does not automatically mean he would be unable to practice ever again. That decision is made by the Bar Association. Would it look awfully bad to let convicted murderers continue to practice the law? Yeah, most likely.

No amount of 'but the murder of his wife had nothing to do with how he practiced the law' would matter, or help. IT WOULD LOOK BAD. That can often be enough. And would you really want it any other way? Do you really want murderers and rapists licensed to practice the law?

Where I have extreme difficulty with self-regulation along vague 'community standards' ethical guidelines is where the behaviour in question really has nothing to do with one's ability to function as a professional. But it varies from profession to profession. As a teacher, I would have faced a much higher chance of losing my certification for engaging in BDSM at a sex club, for example, than I would as a lawyer. For certain professions, there is an expectation that your character will reflect certain values, but those values can be nebulous and shifting. A great many legal professionals I know (personally or by reputation) have massive substance abuse problems, and yet this doesn't seem to cause them trouble. Many solo practicioners, on the other hand, are targeted and persecuted for behaviours much less troublesome.

OK, people, let's try this one more time:

Contrary to the media blurb, this attorney was NOT DISCIPLINED FOR MERELY EXCHANGING SERVICES FOR SERVICES.

The couple of paragraphs in an AP blurb doesn't really accurately sum-up the 37-page Ethics Hearing report. Among other things, he committed battery on his client, breached his fiduciary duties, lied about the whole thing to police and the Ethics committee (we know he lied because she has tapes of some of the sexual assault occuring), he abused his special knowledge of the client (who had a history of being molested and assaulted), etc, etc, etc. Here are some relevant excerpts from the report:

It is well-settled that when an attorney engages in a sexual relationship with his client, he violates the Rules of Professional Conduct. In re Rinella, 175 Ill. 2d 504, 677 N.E.2d 909 (1997). Here, Respondent took advantage of his superior position as Quitno's attorney to gain sexual favors from her at a time when she was vulnerable and dependent on him. Quitno had numerous legal matters which were being handled by Respondent. She had insufficient money to pay Respondent or to hire another attorney. Without Respondent, Quitno would have been without legal representation. By placing Quitno in this situation, Respondent "compromised the exercise of his professional judgment on their behalf and failed to represent them with undivided fidelity." Id. at 516. Accordingly, Respondent breached his fiduciary duty, his representation of Quitno was materially limited by his own interests, and he should have withdrawn from representing her.

Respondent also engaged in overreaching. An attorney commits overreaching when he takes undue advantage of his position of influence over his client. Rinella, 175 Ill. 2d at 516, citing In re Stillo, 68 Ill. 2d 49, 368 N.E.2d 897 (1977). "By making lewd and unsolicited sexual advances to his clients during appointments purportedly scheduled to discuss their cases, and by causing the clients to believe their interests would be harmed if they refused his advances, Respondent took undue advantage of his position and thereby committed overreaching." Rinella, 175 Ill. 2d at 516. The Court's language is applicable to the present case, and we find Respondent therefore engaged in overreaching.

....

Based on our findings that Respondent touched Quitno on her breasts and vagina without her consent, we find Respondent committed a battery. Respondent's conduct reflects on his trustworthiness and fitness to practice law. By taking advantage of a client and using the payment of his fees to coerce her into submitting to his sexual advances, Respondent demonstrated "a serious deficiency in his character and in his ability to interact appropriately with people who depend upon and trust him." In re Fishman, 01 CH 109, M.R. 19462 (September 24, 2004) (Hearing Board Report at 22). Although we believe, and find, Respondent engaged in a criminal act, our focus is on the underlying actions, and the fact they also constituted criminal conduct, in addition to being an independent ethical violations, adds to the seriousness of the sexual misconduct.

Respondent's actions were also prejudicial to the administration of justice, tended to defeat the administration of justice, and brought the legal profession into disrepute. Respondent's misconduct originated from his attorney-client relationship with Quitno. He abused that relationship for his own pleasure. Rinella, 175 Ill. 2d at 516-17.

We find Respondent engaged in the misconduct alleged in Count II of the First Amended Complaint. Specifically, we find Respondent made false statements to the police officers investigating Quitno's allegations of sexual misconduct. Respondent admitted that on March 5, 2003, Detectives Petragallo and Redel interviewed him at his office. During the interview, Respondent told the detectives he never touched Quitno in a sexual way and denied placing his fingers in her vagina or touching her breasts or buttocks. Based on our findings in Count I, we find Respondent's statements to the detectives were false. We found Quitno's testimony credible, including the facts Respondent kissed her, touched her breasts, and touched and inserted his finger into her vagina. We find Respondent's denials of that conduct were false and dishonest.

We further find Respondent's conduct was prejudicial to the administration of justice, tended to defeat the administration of justice, and brought the legal profession into disrepute. As an attorney, Respondent is aware of the importance of being truthful with investigating law enforcement personnel. His false statements hindered the investigation and reflected poorly on the legal profession.

...

We also find Respondent aggravated his misconduct by abusing his position of authority and having a selfish motive. Respondent was Quitno's attorney and by the very nature of that relationship was in a position of authority. He was aware Quitno had been repeatedly sexually abused and molested in the past, both as a very young child and as a teenager. Not only had she explained her history to him, but he represented her in a case in which a doctor had sexually mistreated her. Despite his superior position and his knowledge of Quitno's history, or perhaps because of them, Respondent persisted in engaging in sexual misconduct with her. The fact he exploited and victimized a vulnerable client for his own sexual satisfaction makes his conduct particularly egregious. Fishman, 01 CH 109 (Hearing Board Report at 25-26).

Respondent further aggravated his misconduct by causing harm to Quitno. Although Respondent's legal representation of Quitno was competent, his exploitation of their attorney-client relationship was emotionally damaging to her. Additionally, Quitno was subjected to the embarrassment and humiliation of testifying in public at the disciplinary proceedings. Id. at 26.


On the purely theoretical question of whether an attorney could exchange legal services for the services of a stripper, there are many reasons why that would be a bad idea. Not the least of which is -- legal or not, moral or not -- the services of a stripper are sexually related and sex and clients don't mix. Some small excerpts of the opinion relevant to that HYPOTHETICAL question:

It has been nearly ten years since the Illinois Supreme Court decided the Rinella case. In that case, the Court unequivocally found it is an ethical violation for an attorney to engage in any sexual relations with a client. Abusive relations are unnecessary to render the sexual conduct improper. Numerous subsequent decisions have reiterated the holding of Rinella. Some of those cases have resulted in severe sanctions, while others have resulted in lesser sanctions. Despite the obvious ethical problems implicit in an attorney having sexual relations with a client, it appears some attorneys have not gotten the message, and are not fulfilling their ethical obligations in this regard. Accordingly, we are recommending a somewhat harsher sanction in this case to send a strong message to Respondent and to all other members of the Bar that sexual contact, of any kind, nature or description, with a client is improper and will not be tolerated.

We want to emphasize that we are not making a moral judgment about whether or not consenting adults should, or should not, participate in otherwise lawful sexual activities, including the acts engaged in here between Quitno and Respondent. It is because those activities taint the attorney-client relationship that they are unacceptable and cannot be tolerated. When an attorney and a client are involved, there can be no meaningful consent. Whether or not acquiesced in, or even initiated, by the client, the sexual activity must be deemed to have been involuntary and coerced because the client is not in a position to withhold his or her consent.

Not that anyone is actually going to read the above, understand it, or follow up with this post...but the case Cat is quoting is an judicial review...not a criminal law case. Meaning, the ethics committee made a decision, and it was appealed, to the courts, as is generally available under Administrative Law. A judicial review...rather, the case being in the Supreme Court, does not automatically mean that criminal law burdens of proof, rules of evidence, or procedure in any way, shape or form apply.

What the justices are commenting on is whether the decision was a correct or reasonable one (depending on the standard of review you folks use in yank land, and in this particular instance), and WHY or WHY NOT said decision was correct or reasonable.

Nitpicking over legalities still doesn't have a place here.

I think that a lot of people who have never practiced law, never worked for lawyers, never studied the legal profession in any way, think that the legal profession is just about gaming the system.

I think a lot of people who know nothing about the legal profession also think it's witty and cynical-hip to act like there is no such thing as ethics in the legal profession.

Such people are, of course, wrong on both counts.

I'm not saying we're all that more ethical than anyone else...but we do risk losing our jobs and all future relationships with this profession if we fuck up.

Even before we get those jobs in fact. As a student of law, I'm bound by our code of conduct and there HAVE been those who were not allowed to practice because of shady things they did during their school years.

i know(or was at least told by a crypto-red laywer) in the 80s you could still be disbarred for being a member of a communist organization(i was in ohio at the time if it makes a difference), does anyone know if this is still true?

i know(or was at least told by a crypto-red laywer) in the 80s you could still be disbarred for being a member of a communist organization(i was in ohio at the time if it makes a difference), does anyone know if this is still true?

It's not still the case, no...but if you look at the records of those who were either prevented from entering the profession or those who were disbarred, a disproportionate number of those disqualified under the 'good character' requirement here in Canada were members of communist organisations, or involved in the labour movement.

That's a major criticism of the system...the way it has been used to keep 'certain people' out of the profession. And not necessarily the people the public at large might objectively want out of it.

I don't ever recall receipts being used in barter trades, informal as they usually are. Assuming what ifs doesn't solve the question at hand however. Cat-Tribe lists the rest of the problems rather nicely.

So I'm not allowed to offer solutions to perceived problems?

Why are you trying to wiggle him out of this?

You are not a lawyer. Thus, you are not bound by the particular code of ethics of the Bar in question. You have absolutely NO say in that code, either in its formation or its administration. That's the bald truth of the matter. This is a self-regulating profession.

Part of that ethical code says you don't make shady financial deals. Period. There's absolutely no justification for making such deals, especially in this case.


You have not shown how this financial deal is in anyway shady.

Lawyers have ethics commities? I thought it was their job to lie in order to get guilty people out of punishments?

So I'm not allowed to offer solutions to perceived problems?

When you want to put a band-aid on a severed artery, don't expect anyone to be impressed.

The tax argument was never a particularly good one, I'll agree with you on that.

You have not shown how this financial deal is in anyway shady.

I have shown how both this actual case and the hypothetical financial deal are very shady.

Lawyers have ethics commities? I thought it was their job to lie in order to get guilty people out of punishments?

Ah, isn't it cute.

Lawyers have ethics commities? I thought it was their job to lie in order to get guilty people out of punishments?
you do realize that even if someone were to accept your characterization of criminal defense lawyers, they only make up a modest percentage of all lawyers in the US.

You have not shown how this financial deal is in anyway shady.

Actually I have. In great detail. You even quoted the post I spoke about fiduciary obligations in. Then Cat-Tribe explained it. In great detail.

What has NOT happened here has been anything resembling thought on your part. You aren't discussing anything...you're prancing about like a fop in magenta leotards and a zebra-print tutu whilst playing "Jesus Christ Superstar" on your kazoo. THAT is how relevant your comments have been so far.

Lawyers have ethics commities? I thought it was their job to lie in order to get guilty people out of punishments?

Thus speaks someone without even the most cursory understanding of the legal profession. I'd say 'thus speaks ignorance' but that almost suggests that it's innocent, and not deliberate misconception.

...you're prancing about like a fop in magenta leotards and a zebra-print tutu whilst playing "Jesus Christ Superstar" on your kazoo. to create such a mental image is a trolls dream... okay maybe just my dream... it makes me sad i've been playing it kinda straight on this thread... oh how i wish that had been directed at me.

Lawyers have ethics commities? I thought it was their job to lie in order to get guilty people out of punishments?

Why does everybody always neglect the lawyers whose job it is to destroy hopes and dreams, and force families apart? It makes me sad :(

Why does everybody always neglect the lawyers whose job it is to destroy hopes and dreams, and force families apart? It makes me sad :(Family lawyers are the scummiest of the lot, that's for sure. No matter who wins, everyone loses.

Not like us awesome folks working to get refugees into the country. No one could possibly diss us for THAT!

the thing is for anything lawyers are doing that you don't like in the legal system other lawyers are working for the other side.

Ye gods, some of the comments in this thread are dumb.

Let's make this simple - even if had not sexually assaulted her (which he did), even if he had not lied to the police (which he did), even if he had not lied further at his hearing (which he did), he had a sexual relationship with a client. That is a giant freaking no-no, and anyone with half a brain ought to understand why. Lawyers, doctors, employers, teachers, and so forth are in an automatic position of authority which renders any relationship they might have with an underling ethically shady, both because it compromises that underling's ability to consent freely, and it compromises their own ability to act without positive or negative prejudice towards the underling - and that's just dealing with happy, fuzzy, loving, and consensual relationships rather than "Well, come back and let me grab your boobs again, and maybe I'll knock some more money off your bill."

But you still haven't shown why it's shady, Poli!

to create such a mental image is a trolls dream... okay maybe just my dream... it makes me sad i've been playing it kinda straight on this thread... oh how i wish that had been directed at me.
I especially admire her for using the word "whilst" in that sentence. :D

But you still haven't shown why it's shady, Poli!
Because it happened indoors, in the shade. Maybe even with the shades drawn. You think it's shady enough for him yet?

Ye gods, some of the comments in this thread are dumb.

Let's make this simple - even if had not sexually assaulted her (which he did), even if he had not lied to the police (which he did), even if he had not lied further at his hearing (which he did), he had a sexual relationship with a client. That is a giant freaking no-no, and anyone with half a brain ought to understand why. Lawyers, doctors, employers, teachers, and so forth are in an automatic position of authority which renders any relationship they might have with an underling ethically shady, both because it compromises that underling's ability to consent freely, and it compromises their own ability to act without positive or negative prejudice towards the underling - and that's just dealing with happy, fuzzy, loving, and consensual relationships rather than "Well, come back and let me grab your boobs again, and maybe I'll knock some more money off your bill."

Thank you for stating in a concise manner the points I was trying to babble on about. :)

I think that a lot of people who have never practiced law, never worked for lawyers, never studied the legal profession in any way, think that the legal profession is just about gaming the system.

I think a lot of people who know nothing about the legal profession also think it's witty and cynical-hip to act like there is no such thing as ethics in the legal profession.

Such people are, of course, wrong on both counts.

yeah ...I totally agree....NOT....I have three lawyers in the family...And you no what? there assholes! and they have no soul! or ethics!

Let's make this simple - even if had not sexually assaulted her (which he did), even if he had not lied to the police (which he did), even if he had not lied further at his hearing (which he did), he had a sexual relationship with a client.

My argument is also under the same assumptions you made above except for the last (lets assume all stripper related laws were followed). I dont think you can define it as a sexual relationship. If i go to see a stripper at a strip club i dont consider myself to have had a sexual relationship with her nor im sure does she.

So again, assuming all of the above except for the last and substitute the word stripper with mechanic was this still an ethics violation?

yeah ...I totally agree....NOT....I have three lawyers in the family...And you no what? there assholes! and they have no soul! or ethics!
Well, now let's try to analyze this, shall we? Does ANYONE in your family have a soul or any ethics? Maybe the problem with those three lawyers is genetics, rather than their profession. It could happen.

My argument is also under the same assumptions you made above except for the last (lets assume all stripper related laws were followed). I dont think you can define it as a sexual relationship. If i go to see a stripper at a strip club i dont consider myself to have had a sexual relationship with her nor im sure does she.

So again, assuming all of the above except for the last and substitute the word stripper with mechanic was this still an ethics violation?
A) YOUR view of whether going to a stripper is sexual or not is irrelevant. YOUR view of whether a given action is an ethical violation or not is irrelevant. All that matters is whether THE ETHICAL REVIEW BOARD AND RULES OF YOUR PROFESSION say it is. And in this case, they do, and that means, it is.

B) "Going to a stripper" is not what happened in this case.

If the woman had been actually working as a stripper, and her lawyer went to her place of work (the strip club), and she freely and voluntarily traded stripdances for legal services, then you could argue that this would be analogous to the lawyer going to an autobody shop and freely and voluntarily entering into an agreement with a mechanic to trade legal services for auto work.

But what happened here was that the lawyer did not engage strip services in the course of a stripper working as such, nor was the arrangement entered into freely and voluntarily. Rather, the lawyer used financial costs to pressure the woman into providing stripdances in his office, privately, in a place where she had no recourse to protect herself (such as witnesses or bouncers to look out for her), and without any guarantee that he would hold up his end of the bargain.

He used money concerns to pressure her into doing this against her will, and that would be analagous to him using money to pressure mechanic against his will into working on a car.

By ignoring both of the above aspects of this situation, you're pretty much ignoring the situation itself, which begs the question, just what are you talking about? Because it sure isn't what happened.

yeah ...I totally agree....NOT....I have three lawyers in the family...And you no what? there assholes! and they have no soul! or ethics!

I bet they could spell though.

My argument is also under the same assumptions you made above except for the last (lets assume all stripper related laws were followed). I dont think you can define it as a sexual relationship. If i go to see a stripper at a strip club i dont consider myself to have had a sexual relationship with her nor im sure does she.

So again, assuming all of the above except for the last and substitute the word stripper with mechanic was this still an ethics violation?

You don't just get to ignore the reality of the situation in order to advance your hypothetical. Sorry.

FIDUCIARY (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fiduciary). Please. Fucking look it up. It's been explained to you here a number of times but apparently you're ignoring it because it's inconvenient to you.

Exchanging legal services for mechanical work is quite likely an ethical breach in ways that are not similar to exchanging legal services for lap dances. THAT has also been explained to you by Cat-Tribe, AND myself.

By ignoring both of the above aspects of this situation, you're pretty much ignoring the situation itself, which begs the question, just what are you talking about? Because it sure isn't what happened.

But but, I'm being really clever, and maybe if I just keep repeating the same things over and over and ignoring the responses, someone will recognise said cleverness, and worship me for being such an amazing, ridiculously clever bastard! Maybe they'll even build me a freaking statute and worship at my cold, stone feet! Yeah! Abase thyselves! Like this! :hail: DO IT NOW!

But but, I'm being really clever, and maybe if I just keep repeating the same things over and over and ignoring the responses, someone will recognise said cleverness, and worship me for being such an amazing, ridiculously clever bastard! Maybe they'll even build me a freaking statute and worship at my cold, stone feet! Yeah! Abase thyselves! Like this! :hail: DO IT NOW!
*falls about laughing* :D

Family lawyers are the scummiest of the lot, that's for sure. No matter who wins, everyone loses.

Not like us awesome folks working to get refugees into the country. No one could possibly diss us for THAT!

I made a grown man cry today. :wink:


To be fair, his wife, daughter, and lawyer was already crying, so the foundation was already laid...

I bet they could spell though.

http://generalitemafia.ipbfree.com/uploads/ipbfree.com/generalitemafia/emo-music024.gif http://i31.photobucket.com/albums/c352/ff3333/kelso_burn.gif