Search Site

Connecticut lawyer tells disciplinary panel and grievance committee that lawyer/client romantic relationships lead to better representation

Hello everyone and welcome to this JACPA Ethics Alert which will discuss the recent media reports of a Connecticut lawyer who stated to a state lawyer disciplinary panel (and wrote in a brief to the statewide grievance committee) that lawyers who have romantic relationships with their clients provide better representation and that disciplinary rules which limit or prohibit such relationships are counterproductive and violate the U.S. Constitution.

According to the media reports, including the Norwich Bulletin, Connecticut’s lawyer discipline system began investigating the lawyer when it received a complaint alleging that he began representing and having a personal romantic relationship with a woman he was representing in an ongoing divorce proceeding.  The discipline complaint was made by the former (or soon to be former) spouse.

The lawyer apparently told the disciplinary panel investigating the matter: “My advice to a woman going through a divorce is, find a competent trial lawyer and make him your boyfriend.”  He is also quoted as saying:  “There is not a conflict of interests.  It’s a coincidence of interests. I know that’s not what they want to teach at Sunday school.  But I live in the real world.”  The lawyer said he has been representing his fiancée in the divorce for the past five years.

The lawyer (who maintains primarily a bankruptcy practice) recently filed a 75-page brief with the Connecticut statewide grievance committee appealing a decision made by a two-person disciplinary panel that he violated Connecticut lawyer discipline rules by engaging in the relationship.  The lawyer argued that the panel’s report was “replete with errors”.  Further, “(t)he panel has no business making such a recommendation” for him or any other lawyer.  “This is aggressive judicial paternalism versus freedom of association”.

The lawyer was also quoted as saying:  “There are fundamental constitutional ramifications here. This is the type of fight I live for”  and that he believes that lawyer discipline rules limiting or prohibiting such personal relationships are unconstitutional and infringe upon a lawyer’s freedom of association and also are evidence of an unnecessarily “aggressive judicial paternalism.”  He said that he is prepared to testify before the statewide grievance committee and also to request that the ACLU appeal the case further, even possibly to the U.S. Supreme Court.

Bottom line:  The various state Bar Rules prohibiting or limiting romantic (i.e. sexual) relationships between lawyers and clients are designed to protect the client, the legal profession, and lawyers since such relationships may arguably cloud judgment, create conflicts of interest, and become exploitative, particularly if the client is vulnerable.  Florida has been wrestling with the disciplinary rules (and the constitutional questions) related to such relationships for years.

Current Florida Bar Rule 4-8.4(i) does not prohibit such relationships outright but contains a presumption that the client’s interests are exploited or adversely affected when the relationship starts after the representation begins.  The Bar Rule states as follows:

A lawyer shall not: (i) engage in sexual conduct with a client or a representative of a client that exploits or adversely affects the interests of the client or the lawyer-client relationship.

If the sexual conduct commenced after the lawyer-client relationship was formed it shall be presumed that the sexual conduct exploits or adversely affects the interests of the client or the lawyer-client relationship. A lawyer may rebut this presumption by proving by a preponderance of the evidence that the sexual conduct did not exploit or adversely affect the interests of the client or the lawyer-client relationship.

The prohibition and presumption stated in this rule do not apply to a lawyer in the same firm as another lawyer representing the client if the lawyer involved in the sexual conduct does not personally provide legal services to the client and is screened from access to the file concerning the legal representation.

…be careful out there!

            As always, if you have any questions about this Ethics Alert or need assistance, analysis, and guidance regarding these or any other ethics, risk management, or other issues, please do not hesitate to contact me.





My law firm focuses on review, analysis, and interpretation of the Rules Regulating The Florida Bar, advice and representation of lawyers in Bar disciplinary matters, defense of applicants for admission to The Florida Bar before the Board of Bar Examiners, defense of all Florida licensed professionals in discipline and admission matters before all state agencies and boards, expert ethics opinions, and practice management for lawyers and law firms.  If there is a lawyer or other Florida professional license involved, I can defend the complaint or help you get your license.

If you have any questions or comments, please call me at (727) 799-1688 or e-mail me at [email protected].  You can find my law firm on the web at In addition to handling individual cases, matters, problems and issues for my clients, I also am on retainer to provide ethics advice to numerous lawyers and law firms throughout the state of Florida.  I also provide legal assistance and advice to numerous individuals and non-legal entities to help insure compliance with the law and rules related to UPL and other issues.

Disclaimer:  this blog does not contain any legal advice and the comments herein should not be relied upon by anyone who reads it.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Contact us

Please fill out the form below and one of our attorneys will contact you.

Quick Contact Form

Our Office
  • Law Office of Joseph A. Corsmeier, P.A
    2999 Alt. 19
    Suite A
    Palm Harbor, Florida 34683
    Phone: 727-799-1688
    Email: [email protected]
AV Rated