« Farewell To an Old Lady | Main | Spring Theme »
April 21, 2005
A Question of Ethics
Here's a hypothetical conundrum for my lawyer readers:
Arkansas recently adopted new Model Rules (our ethical guidelines for my non-legal readers). Among the new Rules is Rule 1.8(j) which states:
A lawyer shall not have sexual relations with a client unless a consensual sexual relationship existed between them when the client-lawyer relationship commenced.
A good rule I thought, though it doesn't really affect me....until I read the notes.
Note 19 says:
When the client is an organization, paragraph (j) of this Rule prohibits a lawyer for the organization (whether inside counsel or outside counsel) from having a sexual relationship with a constituent of the organization who supervises, directs or regularly consults with that lawyer concerning the organization's legal matters.
I see a potential problem here. Let's say, hypothetically, that in the coming months I get a job as a corporate regulatory compliance attorney. And this job is at the same corporation Mike works. If part of Mike's job duties involves regulatory compliance, it's probably that he would "regularly consult" with me. And since regulatory compliance issues would probably qualify as "legal matters", because the regs are state/federal laws........you see where I'm going here?
Maybe I'm misreading this, but I think I'll be looking for a definite answer before I apply for a job there.
What do y'all think?
Posted by Rita at April 21, 2005 12:54 PM
Comments
I wonder how this applies to a married couple? I see how this would affect two people who are dating or not yet married, but I had always assumed that married couple had special legal grounds in cases like this. This sounds dumb, but have you consulted with another lawyer about this? Perhaps it would also hinge on whether or not he "regularly consults with [you] ... on legal matters." If it was not a regularly scheduled event, would this still apply?
Posted by: Bob at April 22, 2005 09:02 AM
I would imagine it applies to married couples even more so. One of the concerns is that the ties of the relationship could make you more likely not to carry out your ethical duties....especially in this context, where you could potentially have to choose between what's best for your client (the corporation) and your spouse.
I'm going to e-mail one of my law professors & see what he thinks. He taught my ethics class, and was on the committee that re-wrote our Rules. Until I get an answer from someone who knows, I think I'll err on the side of caution & not get myself into that situation.
This professor's a really neat guy. He taught us a good general rule of thumb to follow was "Don't do anything you'd be ashamed to tell your grandma about."
Excellent advice.
Posted by: rita at April 22, 2005 09:19 AM
I think that the purpose of the note is to lend some clarity to the definition of "client," rather than to change the circumstances under which sexual relations are permissible between a lawyer and a client. As such, the rule would permit a lawyer to have sexual relations with a "client" (spouse or otherwise) if a "sexual relationship existed between them when the client-lawyer relationship commenced."
As such, I think you're good to go.
Posted by: Jim -PRS at April 22, 2005 10:12 AM
Hope you're right Jim. Otherwise, I should've just spent the last 2 years lying on my ass eating bon-bons, watching TCM and lighting my smokes with $10 bills.
Posted by: rita at April 22, 2005 05:48 PM