August 11, 2010
The Cost Of A Button
The North Carolina State Bar has filed charges against an attorney who is alleged to have made inappropriate comments and advances toward a client who he represented in a divorce and property distribution matter. Among the allegations are claims that the attorney inquired of the client the cost to unbutton or remove each button on her top. The charges further allege that the attorney said to the client "I would expect us to explore everything in the world sexually tonight we could think of..."
The attorney's answer to the complaint has an introductory paragraph that notes that "[i]t is difficult for me to make statements that adversely affect the position of a lady...It is necessary that I make honest derogatory statements in regard to my former client..." The attorney denies that he assaulted or coveted the client and suggests that the complaint to the State Bar was motivated by her jealousy over his relationship with another woman.
TrackBack URL for this entry:
Listed below are links to weblogs that reference The Cost Of A Button:
This is just a complaint. What's more, the case turns on disputed facts which have yet to be determined by a court or tribunal. Is it really appropriate to report this? That's doubly true given that the attorney's response is a motion to dismiss. Motions to dismiss argue that the tribunal lacks jurisdiction to entertain the complaint.
Actually, if there is anything of interest in this case it is the defenses hinted at in the motion to dismiss dealing with the power of the prosecution to grant immunity for a federal crime and the appropriateness of using allegedly illegally obtained evidence.
Posted by: FixedWing | Aug 11, 2010 9:38:04 AM
jurisdiction is not an issue with any legs or weight - the content of the tape recorded calls doesn't appear to in conflict - the answer appears to be designed to scare off the client/witness - for a case using taped phone conversations of a sexual nature to establish misconduct see in re: robert defrancesch 2004-0289 (la.07/02/04) 877 so.2d.71
Posted by: fred ours | Aug 12, 2010 8:20:33 AM