Search

Lawyers have positioned themselves at the helm of litigation and policy reform catalyzed by #MeToo. However, lawyers have catastrophically failed to self-regulate with respect to sexual violence. When confronted with fellow lawyers who have sexually abused and harassed their own clients, the attorney discipline system has fallen short of its mission to protect the public and maintain the integrity of the profession. Despite a robust set of ethical rules that would support strong disciplinary consequences for attorneys who have committed sexual misconduct against their clients, a review of post-#MeToo cases reveals remarkable leniency in the discipline of such attorneys. State disciplinary authorities and courts have consistently prioritized the subjective experience of the offending attorney to the near total exclusion of the client-victim's subjective experience. In justifying lenient sanctions for egregious sexual misconduct, adjudicators have used a proportionality analysis linked to regressive precedent, thus halting any potential progress towards fairer outcomes. Adjudicators have devalued the harm experienced by client-victims of sexual violence by their attorneys. As a result, attorneys have been permitted to prey upon clients--including particularly vulnerable, marginalized, and desperate clients--with relative impunity. This Article argues for the need to take bold action to address attorney-client sexual violence and assure the public that attorney-client sexual exploitation is not tolerated within the profession. Accordingly, the Article advocates for the long-overdue universal adoption of the sexual conflict of interest rule and proposes strict liability and presumptive disbarment for attorney-client sexual contact and presumptive actual suspension for all other attorney-client sexual harassment. The Article also proposes a survivor-centered model of attorney discipline and argues that such a model would bring the discipline system closer to achieving its widely accepted purposes of protecting the public and maintaining the integrity of the profession. Finally, the Article makes the perhaps controversial proposal that the legal profession should explore abuse prevention protocols to reduce attorney-client sexual violence, particularly against minors. Given the harm that lawyers have inflicted upon those we purport to help, the profession must be open to new strategies to address and prevent attorney-client sexual violence. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The article offers an update on attorney discipline, including attorneys and licensed paralegal practitioners, in Utah, as of January 2021. Honorable Patrick W. Corum, Third Judicial District Court, entered an order of suspension, against Steven E. Rush, suspending his license to practice law. Honorable Amber M. Metter, Third Judicial District Court, entered an order of discipline against Don Carlos Stirling, placing him on probation. Cynthia M. Gordon was disbarred from the practice of law.

The article presents a report of the Office of Chief Disciplinary Counsel of the Missouri Bar for calendar year 2019. Also cited are the disciplinary actions against lawyers like Allan H. Bell, Sherrie Lynn Brady, and David Preston Crandall, the office's informal resolution program, the bar's fee dispute resolution program, and the cases filed at the Missouri Supreme Court.

The article lists Missouri lawyers who were meted disciplinary actions, including Henry V. Griffin, Michael Martin Spiegel, and Kristy Lynn Ridings.

The article examines what work within the legal field can a suspended or disbarred lawyer can engage in without risking a contempt judgment, after the Supreme Court of Missouri suspended the lawyer's license and ordered him to comply in all aspects with Rule 5.27 . Topics discussed include requirements of Rule 5.27, and reports regarding the lawyer's activities received by the Office of Chief Disciplinary Counsel (OCDC), shortly after the order of suspension.

The article presents an update on lawyers who had been disciplined by the Utah State Bar. Topics covered include the public reprimand against Rocky C. Crofts for his violation of the Rule 1.15(d) of the Rules of Professional Conduct, order entered by the Utah Supreme Court which accepts the resignation with discipline pending involving Philip J. Danielson for violations of various rules such as Rule 5.5(a) (Unauthorized Practice of Law) and the suspension of license of Paul E. Remy.

The article provides an overview of lawyer discipline rulings issued by the Indiana Supreme Court in 2017. Actions taken by court upon a finding of law misconduct are identified. The article also discussed the Per Curiam disbarment opinions of the court, violations of the Rules of Professional Conduct and trust account procedural rules in the Indiana Rules of Admission and Discipline and appealable prosecurotial misconduct during trial.

The article focuses on disciplinary actions against the lawyers of Utah. It mentions the suspension of license of Michael R. Power to practice law for a period of eighteen months, public reprimand against Terry R. Spencer for violating Rules 1.4(a) (Communication) and 1.5(a) (Fees) of Utah Rules of Professional Conduct by Utah Supreme Court and disbarment of Jeremy D. Eveland from the practice of law for his violation of Rules 8.4(b) and 8.4(c) (Misconduct) of the Rules of Professional Conduct.