Should Lawyer Who Has Sex With His Client be Disbarred?

It is common knowledge that a doctor who enters into an intimate relationship with his/her patient will typically lose his license to practice medicine. But what about lawyers? Is a sexual relationship between a lawyer and his client considered a punishable ethical breach? Is it a conflict of interest and should it warrant disbarment?

The story of Ontario lawyer Anthony Macri provides some insight into this delicate subject. Mr. Macri was acting in a family law case for a vulnerable stay-at-home mom with two young children. She found herself without financial resources to defend herself against her husband’s litigation tactics, which included allegedly vandalizing her personal property.

Falling for a “damsel in distress”,  Mr. Macri began a consensual sexual relationship with his client, a coupling that both hoped would continue after her family law matters were completed. During the course of their romantic trysts, Mr. Macri loaned his client $60,000 to cover her legal fees and personal expenses. She promised to pay him back from her share of the sale proceeds of the family home.

Eventually her home sold, but she refused to reimburse Mr. Macri for the loan. That is when their relationship turned ugly. Mr. Macri retaliated by sending threatening emails and text messages to his former lover saying “You don’t want to screw me over like this. Your case isn’t over. You still need me.” Other messages suggested that Mr. Macri would divulge personal information to her husband.

Not surprisingly, Mr. Macri ‘s lover reported their relationship to the Law Society of Ontario, and was called upon by them to address the issues raised by his clandestine relationship. The hearing tribunal found that Mr. Macri’s behavior in both acting for his client and sleeping with her was a conflict of interest. His loan to her, which he did not disclose to his law firm was the basis for their finding that Mr. Macri lacked integrity, and his inappropriate and abusive emails to her constituted dishonourable conduct.

While physicians who engage in sexual activities with their patients are subject to removal from their profession, there is no similar policy with respect to lawyers.

Lawyer Macri was fired by his law firm; suspended from the practice of law for two and a half months, and fined $2,500 with additional costs of $2,000 payable to the Law Society.

Should lawyers have the same ethical edicts as doctors in Canada? University of Ottawa law professor Adam Dodek was quoted in the “Toronto Star”, saying:

“Lawyers who have sex with their clients should be subject to a mandatory penalty of disbarment, the ultimate penalty that law societies can impose on lawyers. It is surely time to revisit the issue in the public interest.”

Side note: Was Mr. Macri repaid the funds he loaned? No.

Lawdiva aka Georgialee Lang

Incompetent Lawyer is Grounds for New Trial: Or is it?

GeorgiaLeeLang009You have surely heard the time-worn adage “You get what you pay for”? Often that is true, but not always.

The decades-long investigation into the death of 15-year-old Martha Moxley of tony Greenwich, Connecticut in 1975 ultimately led to the  2000 arrest and  2002 conviction of Michael Skakel, infamous as a Kennedy cousin.

Over the years, Skakel, with the help of cousin Robert Kennedy,  battled to reverse his conviction, but was largely unsuccessful until 2013 when he persuaded Mr. Justice  Thomas Bishop of the Connecticut Superior Court to overturn his conviction, based on the incompetence of his trial lawyer.

Skakel’s trial lawyer was no junior schlep, but celebrity attorney Mickey Sherman whose reputation as a skilled, albeit flamboyant criminal counsel, was well-established.

Sherman’s successful law career was fast tracked when he became a legal commentator and analyst for  MSNBC, CNBC, HLN, Fox News, CBS, and CNN.  But his courtroom prowess took a huge hit after representing Michael Skakel in his  2002 murder trial.

Skakel’s new counsel argued that attorney Sherman spent more time basking in the limelight and charming the media than putting his mind to an aggressive, comprehensive defence of Mr. Skakel. From the outset, it was Michael Skakel’s older brother, Tom, who was suspected of sexually assaulting and beating neighbour girl Martha Moxley  with a golf club.

He was a plausible suspect who had a history of  emotional instability, anger and violence and  had admitted to consensual sexual relations with Martha on the night she died. Ms. Moxley’s diary confirmed an ongoing sexual tension between her and Tom Skakel.

Another young man, Ken Littleton,  who  worked as a tutor for the Skakel family and lived with them, also attracted the attention of police investigators. In finding that Mickey Sherman did not properly defend his client,  Judge Bishop noted Mr. Sherman’s failure to argue that either or both of these suspects was the more likely perpetrator, introducing an element of reasonable doubt, was a serious error.

Skakel also had an independent alibi witness that Mr. Sherman did not call to testify. Sherman advised the court that he had not been told about this witness, however, if Mr. Sherman had read the transcript of the  grand jury hearing he would have known.

A particularly strong prosecution witness was vigorously cross-examined by Mr. Sherman,  who  later bragged of his decimation of the witness, but Sherman failed to call witnesses who could  actually impeach his testimony.  Mr. Sherman’s excuse was that they couldn’t be found, although later Skakel’s appellate counsel easily located them.

Among the  litany of instances of ineffective assistance of counsel was Mr. Sherman’ s acceptance of two jurors who Mr. Sherman could and should have declined to seat on the jury panel.

The first was a police officer who knew Mr. Sherman and was a motorcycle buddy of one of the investigating officers.  The juror reminded Mr. Sherman that he had effectively defended a client who had assaulted the juror and had on another occasion angered this juror’s wife when he aggressively cross-examined her in another case.

The second juror that Sherman should not have approved was a woman who admitted that her good friend’s mother knew Martha Moxley’s mother. She said she thought it would be a little awkward for her to explain an acquittal to her friend and that she might feel defensive about an acquittal, given the friendship with Mrs. Moxley. She also indicated that a friend’s father had been murdered and she testified that it could be difficult for her, as a juror, to separate herself from feelings that might arise because her oldest child and Ms. Moxley were the same age. Shockingly, Mr. Sherman saw no reason to eliminate these jurors from the panel.

Yesterday a new page in this murder mystery was written when the Connecticut appeal court overturned Judge Bishop’s  judgment ending Mr. Skakel’s short-lived freedom. The court found that attorney Mickey Sherman, despite accusations to the contrary, represented him effectively and thus earned his $1.2 million dollar legal fee.

No doubt further appeals will follow.

Lawdiva aka Georgialee Lang

Christmas Parenting Conflicts

GEO CASUAL

Christmas is supposed to be the happiest time of the year, but we know that for some it is a lonely, regretful time, remembering the sorrows of seasons past.

In homes divided by separation and divorce, the areas of conflict arise from the dynamics of struggling to ensure you see your children, and the difficult discussions between former spouses about sharing their children’s holiday time.

When former spouses remarry and introduce new partners into the family, it is not unusual to hear complaints of resentment and  recrimination focused on the new stepmother or stepfather.

Perhaps one of the most annoying irritants is hearing  8-year-old Johnny call his father’s new partner “Mom”.  An unkinder cut is hard to imagine for newly divorced parents.

One parent was so disturbed she asked a judge to intervene to stop her young son from calling her ex-husband’s fiancee “Mom”.  She was also opposed to her ex’s girlfriend having increased input into her son’s life.

In this case the parents shared legal custody but Johnny lived primarily with his father. New Jersey Judge Lawrence Jones found that both parents and father’s fiancee contributed to Johnny’s well-being, but noted that while the fiancee’s opinions were welcome, it was up to Johnny’s biological parents to make decisions for Johnny.

However,  the Judge declared that it was up to Johnny to decide how he wished to refer to his parents and his father’s fiancee, mainly because the young boy was mature enough to decide for himself. The Court said:

“At this challenging point in his growth and development, he certainly does not need his parents, or a stepparent, or the court, hoisting further unnecessary burdens upon his fragile shoulders by micromanaging his words and thoughts, or commanding him how to address his stepparent in order to please his mother or father.”

I’m sure Johnny’s mother thought the decision was unfair to her, but the reality is that it is not about her feelings, it’s about her son’s self-determination and development.

Lawdiva aka Georgialee Lang

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

T’was the Night Before Christmas (Legal Version)

A variety of foot apparel, e.g. stocking, socks, etc., had been affixed by
and around the chimney in said House in the hope and/or belief that St. Nick
a/k/a/ St. Nicholas a/k/a/ Santa Claus (hereinafter “Claus”) would arrive at House
sometime thereafter.

The minor residents, i.e. the children, of the aforementioned House were
located in their individual beds and were engaged in nocturnal
hallucinations, i.e. dreams, wherein visions of confectionery treats,
including, but not limited to, candies, nuts and/or sugar plums, did dance,
cavort and otherwise appear in said dreams.

Whereupon the party of the first part (sometimes hereinafter referred to as
“I”), being the joint-owner in fee simple of the House with the party of the
second part (hereinafter “Mamma”), and said Mamma had retired for a
sustained period of sleep. (At such time, the parties were clad in various
forms of headgear, e.g. kerchief and cap.)

Suddenly, and without prior notice or warning, there did occur upon the
unimproved real property adjacent and appurtenant to said House, i.e. the
lawn, a certain disruption of unknown nature, cause and/or circumstance. The
party of the first part did immediately rush to a window in the House to
investigate the cause of such disturbance.

At that time, the party of the first part did observe, with some degree of
wonder and/or disbelief, a miniature sleigh (hereinafter “the Vehicle”)
being pulled and/or drawn very rapidly through the air by approximately
eight (8) reindeer. The driver of the Vehicle appeared to be and in fact
was, the previously referenced Claus.

Said Claus was providing specific direction, instruction and guidance to the
approximately eight (8) reindeer and specifically indentified the animal
co-conspirators by name: Dasher, Dancer, Prancer, Vixen, Comet, Cupid,
Donner and Blitzen (hereinafter “the Deer”). (Upon information and belief,
it is further asserted an additional co-conspirator named “Rudolph” may have
been involved.)

The party of the first part witnessed Claus, the Vehicle and the Deer
intentionally and willfully trespass upon the roofs of several residences
located adjacent to and in the vicinity of the House, and noted that the
Vehicle was heavily laden with packages, toys and other items of unknown
origin or nature. Suddenly, without prior invitation or permission, either
express or implied, the Vehicle arrived at the House, and Claus entered said
House via the chimney.

Said Claus was clad in a red fur suit, which was partially covered with
residue from the chimney, and he carried a large sack containing a portion
of the aforementioned packages, toys, and other unknown items. He was
smoking what appeared to be tobacco in a small pipe in blatant violation of
local ordinances and health regulations.

Claus did not speak, but immediately began to fill the stocking of the minor
children, which hung adjacent to the chimney, with toys and other small
gifts. (Said items did not, however, constitute “gifts” to said minor
pursuant to the applicable provisions of the U.S. Tax Code.)

Upon completion of such task, Claus touched the side of his nose and flew,
rose and/or ascended up the chimney of the House to the roof where the
Vehicle and Deer waited and/or served as “lookouts.” Claus immediately
departed for an unknown destination.

However, prior to the departure of the Vehicle, Deer and Claus from said
House, the party of the first part did hear Claus state and/or exclaim:

“Merry Christmas to all and to all a good night!” Or words to that effect.

MERRY CHRISTMAS TO YOU!

LAWDIVA AKA GEORGIALEE LANG

Lawyers’ Merry Christmas Cards

Lawyers’ Merry Christmas Cards

Just for fun, I’ll set out the sentiments from a few lawyers’ Christmas cards:

1. Picture an intense lawyer grilling Santa Claus on the witness stand:

“I’ll ask you again sir, did you or did you not look at my client, and in a crowded shopping mall, in front of her children, call her not once, but three times… a ho?”

2. A lawyer making closing submissions in court:

“The evidence will clearly show that my client, Mr. Claus, was not the driver of the sleigh the night that Grandma, as the charges read, “got run over by a reindeer”.

3. This time it’s a sleigh full of reindeer being pulled by Santa Claus:

“Our lawyers sure know how to negotiate an employment contract.”

4. Husband reading a Christmas card to his wife:

“Honey, our lawyer wishes us, but in no way guarantees a Merry Christmas”

5. Child sitting on Santa’s lap in a department store:

“Actually my legal counsel has advised me to plead the 5th with respect to “naughty or nice”.”

6. Santa standing outside the front door of a home on Christmas Eve
with his lawyer:

“My client would like you to sign this waiver before he descends your chimney.”

7. A lawyer sitting on Santa’s lap in a department store, reading his Christmas
wish list:

“Sympathetic judges, evidence that is irrefutable, friendly juries, no hostile witnesses.”

8. Young boy sitting on Santa’s lap in a department store:

“As to your question “Were you a good boy?”, my attorney tells me I have the right to remain silent.”

MERRY CHRISTMAS!

Lawdiva aka Georgialee Lang

Merry Christmas Disclaimer

PLEASE ACCEPT without obligation, express or implied, these best wishes for an

environmentally safe, socially responsible, low stress, non addictive, and gender

neutral celebration of the winter solstice holiday as practiced within the most

enjoyable traditions of the religious persuasion of your choice (but with respect

for the religious or secular persuasions and/or traditions of others or for their

choice not to practice religious or secular traditions at all):

AND FURTHER for a fiscally successful, personal fulfilling, and

medically uncomplicated onset of the generally accepted calendar year

(including, but not limited to, the Christian calendar, but not

without due respect for the calendars of choice or of other cultures).

THE PROCEEDING wishes are extended without regard to the race, creed,

colour, age, physical ability, religious faith, choice of computer platform, or

sexual preference of the wishee.

 

Lawdiva aka Georgialee Lang

It All Seemed So Good: Toronto Neurosurgeon Arrested for Murder of Wife

GeorgiaLeeLang025Mohammed Shamji had it all:  a beautiful wife, who was herself a family doctor, three lovely children, and a PhD from Duke University in biomedical engineering, which paved the way for his reputation as a world-renowned neurosurgeon. But the family was hiding a secret…according to news reports, the Shamji’s had visits from the police more than once for allegations of domestic violence and neighbours reportedly heard them fighting.

Tragically the ultimate weapon for men that engage in family violence was unleashed when Dr. Sahmji, age 40, allegedly murdered his wife, Elana Fric-Shamji last week in their garage. He was arrested on Friday and is in police custody charged with first degree murder. The media reports that Dr. Shamji placed her body in a suitcase and dropped her  beside a river in suburban Toronto, where she was found the day before her husband was arrested.  The coroner determined she died from strangulation and blunt force trauma.

It is impossible to pigeon-hole Dr. Shamji as he does not fall within the typical profile of a husband (or wife) who murders their partner, which includes severe mental illness, previous felony convictions, lower intelligence, and more cognitive impairment than in other types of murders. However, eschewing political correctness,  it may well be that his cultural upbringing played a role.

The killing of a female intimate partner or spouse is referred to as “uxoricide”. Statistics reveal that of 2,340 partner murders in America in 2007, female victims made up 70%. In South-East Asia 55% of all murdered women died at the hands of their partner, in Africa it is 40%, and 38% in the Americas. It is reported that approximately 7 women are killed per month in England and Wales, 4 women per month in Australia, and in the United States it is 76 women per month.

Dr. Elana Fric-Shamji had recently filed for divorce and expressed relief that she was on her way to a new life. This stage of separation is the most dangerous time for women. Her last tweet on November 27, 2016 was lively and upbeat, displaying a photo of her and a fellow female physician. Her children have now been placed with their maternal grandparents. How very sad…

Lawdiva aka Georgialee Lang