Texas lawyers reject ban on sex with clients

By Correy Stephenson The Daily Record Newswire A proposed ethics rule that would have prohibited sex with clients has been rejected by Texas attorneys. The state released proposed Rule 1.13, Prohibited Sexual Relations, which would prohibit lawyers from conditioning the representation of a client or prospective client, or the quality of such representation, on having any person engage in sexual relations with the lawyer. The proposed rule would ban lawyers from soliciting or accepting sexual relations as payment, and forbid sexual relations with a client that the lawyer is "personally representing" unless the lawyer and client are married to each other, or are engaged in an ongoing consensual sexual relationship that began before the representation. The proposed rule was open for comment and a vote by members of the Texas state bar, who responded by overwhelmingly rejecting the proposal, with 72 percent voting against its passage. The rejection by Texas lawyers doesn't mean the end of the proposal, however; the Texas Supreme Court can still adopt the rule despite its unpopularity. Texas isn't alone in considering the issue, as several states have recently released opinions addressing the ethics of lawyers engaged in sexual relationships with clients. In South Carolina, the state's highest court held that sex with a client's wife is a per se ethical violation. In that case, a lawyer who had sexual relations with the client's estranged wife on one occasion was admonished by the court, which noted his 37 years as a member of the bar with a previously untarnished professional record. In Michigan, a lawyer who engaged in a sexual relationship with the wife of a client he was representing in a divorce proceeding was suspended for three years and ordered to pay restitution to his former client by the Michigan Attorney Discipline Board. And in New Hampshire, the state's Professional Conduct Committee determined that a family law attorney who engaged in a sexual relationship with a client he represented in a divorce proceeding should be publicly censured. Published: Thu, Mar 17, 2011