Total Pageviews

Wednesday, October 31, 2007

How Do You Define Sex?

Remember President Bill Clinton, the Monica Lewinsky scandal, and his deposition testimony that he did not have sex with her because there was no sexual intercourse? Evidently, the Wisconsin Supreme Court agrees. The bar in Wisconsin brought ethics charges against a lawyer which included allegations of misconduct arising out of the lawyer persuading one client to share his girlfriend in a ménage à trois with the lawyer.

In a per curiam opinion, the court ruled that the lawyer's three-way romp did not violate the rule prohibiting sex “with” clients. Although the client was present when the lawyer had sex with the girlfriend, the court said the language of the rule clearly indicates that the prohibited act must involve intimate touching between a lawyer and a client, not just proximity. There was no evidence that such contact occurred here, it said. The Wisconsin rule required the bar to prove that the lawyer had "sexual relations" with the client. The bar's case was not clear as to the client's role in this sexual trist, so that particular charge of misconduct was dismissed.

However, this lawyer was such a crumb bum, that there were other ethics charges that did stick. Those charges included mismangement of client funds, use of cocaine and marijuana with clients, and having another client videotape the lawyer having sex with the client's girlfriend. Yuck!!

Surprisingly, the lawyer only got a three-year suspension for this highly reprehensible conduct. The case is In re Inglimo, Wis., No. 2005AP718-D, 10/18/07.

No comments: