Chapter 7: Client - Lawyer Sexual Relationships

x
Part I
x
So far I have commented on the fact my ex-wife married her attorney and also dated him while conducting her divorce proceeding and all petitions against me for a period of 7 years. There are rules against this but no magistrate, lawyer or judge was willing to discuss this formally in any proceedings. Following is how the Indiana Rules of Lawyers Conduct explains it:

Client-Lawyer Sexual Relationships
Indiana Lawyer Code of Conduct Rule [17]

The relationship between lawyer and client is a fiduciary one in which the lawyer occupies the highest position of trust and confidence. The relationship is almost always unequal; thus, a sexual relationship between lawyer and client can involve unfair exploitation of the lawyer's fiduciary role, in violation of the lawyer's basic ethical obligation not to use the trust of the client to the client's disadvantage. In addition, such a relationship presents a significant danger that, because of the lawyer's emotional involvement, the lawyer will be unable to represent the client without impairment of the exercise of independent professional judgment. Moreover, a blurred line between the professional and personal relationships may make it difficult to predict to what extent client confidences will be protected by the attorney-client evidentiary privilege, since client confidences are protected by privilege only when they are imparted in the context of the client-lawyer relationship. Because of the significant danger of harm to client interests and because the client's own emotional involvement renders it unlikely that the client could give adequate informed consent, this Rule prohibits the lawyer from having sexual relations with a client regardless of whether the relationship is consensual and regardless of the absence of prejudice to the client.

This was discussed in the hallways and back rooms with a slight snicker wondering what the lawyer/husband was thinking about but no one dared bring it up in an official capacity. One judge did lecture the lawyer/husband on the subject after we all attended a hearing that lasted 10 hours included recesses. The judge let the hearing proceed without mentioning this beforehand. Keep in mind this judge was scolded by an appellate justice for setting up a personal date with a juror during the proceedings of a criminal trial he presided over. In fact, early in the day of this marathon hearing the judge complimented the opposing counsel/husband to opposing party on his court demeanor. Somewhere during this morning/day/night hearing the judge figured it was time to admonish the husband/attorney. Much too little much too late.
x

********************