In Re Rinell

Facts

Jane Doe retained D to represent her in a dissolution of marriage proceeding and paid a fee of $7,500. It was alleged that D and Doe had a sexual relationship that began in approximately July of 1983 and D's representation of her. The complaint alleged that the relationship was initiated by D when he made sexual advances to Doe during her second visit to his office, and that Doe submitted because she was afraid that refusing to do so would adversely affect D's representation of her and because she could not afford to hire another lawyer after paying D's retainer. The complaint charged that by engaging in this conduct D had committed overreaching and violated Rules 1-102(a)(5), 5-101(a), 5-102(a), and 5-107(a) of the Code of Professional Responsibility (87 Ill. 2d Rs. 1-102(a)(5), 5-101(a), 5-102(a), 5-107(a)) and Supreme Court Rule 771. D also falsely under oath before the Commission (P) stating that he had never had sexual relations with Doe, that he had not had sex with her at her house, and that he had never had nude photographs taken of himself at her house. D retracted these denials after he was shown a nude picture of himself which he admitted was taken at Doe's house. Count II charged that D violated Rules 8.1(a)(1), 8.4(a)(3), 8.4(a)(4), and 8.4(a)(5) of the Rules of Professional Conduct (134 Ill. 2d Rs. 8.1(a)(1), 8.4(a)(3), (a)(4), (a)(5)) and Supreme Court Rule 771. Jeanne Metzger retained D and paid him a retainer of $2,500. She claims that D barred the door with a chair and initiated sexual activity with her on a Saturday appointment. Metzger submitted because she believed that the quality of D's representation would be adversely affected if she refused. D engaged in sexual activity with Metzger on two other occasions thereafter. D even asked Metzger to supply him with nude pictures of her. The complaint charged that by engaging in the conduct D committed overreaching and violated Rules 1-102(a)(5), 5-101(a), 5-102(a), 5-107(a), and 7-101(a)(3) of the Code of Professional Responsibility (87 Ill. 2d Rs. 1-102(a)(5), 5-101(a), 5-102(a), 5-107(a), 7-101(a)(3)) and Supreme Court Rule 771. Sandra Demos retained D's law firm to represent her in a dissolution of marriage proceeding. D did not have primary responsibility for Demos' case, but he would call her frequently to ask her to meet him socially, and during these telephone calls would discuss with her items of a personal nature that he could only have learned from reviewing her file. D made sexual advances to Demos and engaged in sexual relations with her in his automobile. Demos submitted to D's sexual advances because she believed that refusing to do so would adversely affect his firm's representation of her. The complaint charged that by engaging in the conduct alleged in count IV, respondent committed overreaching and violated Rules 4-101(b)(3), 5-101(a), and 5-102(a) of the Code of Professional Responsibility (87 Ill. 2d Rs. 4-101(b)(3), 5-101(a), 5-102(a)) and Supreme Court Rule 771. D admitted that his testimony before P was untrue, but maintained that his answers were justified because any sexual activity with Doe occurred after his representation of her had ceased and was therefore not a proper subject of D's inquiry. D claimed that no disciplinary rule specifically forbids sexual relations between an attorney and his client. D denied this motion and set the matter for hearing. P found that D engaged in sexual relations with each of the three women while he or his firm represented them. Besides overreaching, P found that D violated the following rules of the Code of Professional Responsibility: Rule 1-102(a)(5), by engaging in conduct prejudicial to the administration of justice ; Rule 4-101(b)(3), by using client confidences for his own advantage; Rule 5-101(a), by failing to withdraw from the women's cases when his professional judgment may have been affected by his own personal interest; and Rule 5-107(a), by failing to represent his clients with undivided fidelity. P found that D violated Rules 8.1(a)(1), 8.4(a)(3), 8.4(a)(4), and 8.4(a)(5) of the Rules of Professional Conduct by giving false testimony before P. P found that D violated Supreme Court Rule 771 by engaging in conduct which tends to defeat the administration of justice or bring the courts or the legal profession into disrepute. P recommended that D be suspended from the practice of law for a period of three years. D appealed. 

Issues

Rule of Law

Holding and Decision

Legal Analysis

© 2007-2024 ABN Study Partner.