Article Title: Sex, Lies, and the Opc
| Publication year | 2003 |
| Pages | 06-8 |
| Citation | Vol. 2003 No. 06 Pg. 06-8 |
06-8 (2003). Article Title: Sex, Lies, and the OPC
June, 2003
Article Title: Sex, Lies, and the OPC
Author: Kate A. Toomey
Article Type
Articles
Article
Utah has a Rule of Professional Conduct explicitly forbidding
sex with a client if it "exploits the lawyer-client
relationship." Rule 8.4(g), Rules of Professional
Conduct. The rule even defines "sexual
relations."(fn1) Under the rule, such relations are
presumed exploitative, but the presumption may be rebutted
See id. at (g)(2). Complaints about attorneys having
sex with their clients seldom reach the Office of
Professional Conduct, and oftentimes, the sexual relationship
preceded the attorney/client relationship and therefore would
not constitute a prima facie violation of the rule
See Rule 8.4(g)(2) (spousal relationships and
relationships that "existed at the commencement of the
lawyer-client relationship" are not presumed to be
exploitative).
What lawyers sometimes don't realize, though, is that
sexually-charged conduct need not violate the
sex-with-clients rule and yet it might still violate the
Rules of Professional Conduct. Here is an example from
Maryland: An attorney spanked a personal injury client,(fn2)
a divorce client, and a person he was interviewing for a
position as his secretary.(fn3) In Maryland, this
constituted, among other things, a violation of Rule 8.4(d)
which provides that it is professional misconduct for a
lawyer to "engage in conduct prejudicial to the
administration of justice."(fn4) Although this conduct
might not have amounted to a violation of Utah's
sex-with-clients rule, it certainly could have been
prosecuted here. As one court has noted, conduct prejudicial
to the administration of justice doesn't take a typical
form; "[t]he common thread ... is that ... the
attorney's act hampered the efficient and proper
operation of the courts or of ancillary systems upon which
the courts rely." Iowa Supreme Court Bd. of
Professional Ethics and Conduct, 588 N.W.2d 121, 123
(Iowa 1999); see also State v. Oklahoma Bar Ass'n v.
Sopher, 852 P.2d 707 (Okla. 1993) (attorney looked down
client's blouse, commenting "don't expose
yourself," then repeated this behavior with client's
mother, commenting "how's it going down
there?"); In re Bergren, 455 N.W.2d 856 (S.D.
1990) (sexual relations with clients violated rule
prohibiting conduct prejudicial to administration of...
To continue reading
Request your trial