The Interplay of Ethical Rules and Attorney-Client Intimate Relationships
Many attorneys have some sort of personal relationships with their clients. Many consider their clients to be good or even close friends. Others may…
March 12, 2018 at 11:31 AM
6 minute read
Many attorneys have some sort of personal relationships with their clients. Many consider their clients to be good or even close friends. Others may be related by blood or marriage to their clients. More rare is the personal relationship between attorney and client that is romantic or sexual in nature. These are the stories that sometimes make the press: media outlets may highlight those scintillating stories laying out the details of intimate relationships between attorneys and clients. In addition to potentially harming these lawyers' reputation and ability to practice, these relationships can create non-trivial exposure for the attorneys' law firm and partners.
The circumstances in which an attorney may be punished for his or her personal relationships with clients vary by jurisdiction. Some states have something akin to a ban on attorneys and clients beginning romantic relationships. In Texas, courts have looked with disapproval on family law attorneys engaging in intimate relationships with their clients that they represent during a divorce proceeding. In another instance, where an attorney had an affair with his client's wife, the court found the attorney's actions were “abhorrent for a member of our profession.” The State bar association disciplined the attorney for that conduct.
But Texas is also one of the only states to find that a sexual relationship between a judge and an attorney does not necessarily create a conflict of interest.
Beyond purely disciplinary sanctions for attorneys engaged in improper personal relationships with clients, there can be financial consequences as well. For example, in another case involving a divorce, an attorney was forced to forfeit 3 million dollars in fees when his former client–lover brought a breach of fiduciary duty case against him.
Given these serious risks, some law firms are beginning to adopt rules prohibiting their attorneys from engaging in intimate relationships with clients. While ethical rules and advisory opinions in most states generally do not require a law firm to take such affirmative steps, the law firm may conclude that the preceding risks arising from an attorney's intimate relationship with a client can impact the law firm as a whole. Nonetheless, many lawyers and law firms will take note of the following considerations when evaluating their exposure from attorney-client intimate relationships.
Terminating the Representation Will Greatly Reduce the Risk
As a starting point, Texas does not outright prohibit attorneys from being involved with their clients. However, an attorney may still be at risk for sanctions if the initiation of a personal romantic relationship with a client would implicate a conflict or suggest that the attorney is exuding undue influence on the client. Therefore, when faced with this situation, many attorneys will balance their financial interest in maintaining a legal representation versus their personal interest in beginning a new intimate relationship with their client. Many conclude that the safest option is generally to end the representation once an intimate relationship has begun to blossom.
Even though terminating an attorney-client relationship will not eliminate every risk inherent in becoming involved with a former client, it is generally less risky than simultaneously pursuing the representation and romance and having to later prove that the two relationships could ethically co-exist. Many attorneys will also consider reaching out to their law partners or colleagues for perspective on the situation or a possible referral for the representation.
Check The Rules of Professional Conduct
Texas has not adopted some form of ABA Model Rule 1.8(j), which explicitly prohibits sexual relationships between an attorney and client once a representation has begun. (This Rule recognizes that attorneys and clients in pre-existing relationships, such as spouses, may not pose the same risk to a representation.) The Model Rule and most states, however, do not adopt an express prohibition against an attorney from representing a client with whom he or she has had an ongoing intimate relationship before the representation began.
A referendum of the members of the State Bar of Texas overwhelmingly voted to reject a “no sex with clients” proposed rule in 2011. But an attorney's sexual relations with a client may in some circumstances still be deemed to violate the ethical rules governing conflicts of interest.
Texas Disciplinary Rule of Professional Conduct 1.06(b)(2) provides that “a lawyer shall not represent a person if the representation of that person: . . . reasonably appears to be or become adversely limited by the . . . lawyer's or law firm's own interests.” A lawyer's own interests in an intimate relationship with the client can, in some circumstances, adversely limit their representation of the client. In those situations, an attorney may be found to have breached the Rules of Professional Conduct by engaging in an intimate relationship with their client while continuing the legal representation.
Whether an intimate relationship has created a conflict of interest generally depends on the totality of the circumstances. Comment 13 to the Texas Rule notes that “Conflicts of interest in contexts other than litigation sometimes may be difficult to assess. Relevant factors in determining whether there is potential for adverse effect include the duration and intimacy of the lawyer's relationship with the client or clients involved . . . The question is often one of proximity and degree.”
Further, Comment 17 to the Rule reminds that while it is “primarily the responsibility of the lawyer undertaking the representation” to raise the conflict of interest, opposing counsel may do so as well. It is not difficult to imagine a scenario in a divorce proceeding, for example, in which opposing counsel, upon the insistence of their aggrieved client, could raise the issue of counsel dating a soon-to-be-divorced client in a divorce proceeding.
Attorney-Client Sexual Relations Pose Significant Risks
For many lawyers and law firms, the exposure created by engaging in an intimate relationship with a prospective or current client may not be worth pursuing such a relationship. In addition to bar grievances and breach of fiduciary claims, for which the risk can be high, there is also the risk that the attorney's or firm's professional liability insurance might not provide coverage for claims arising out of this conduct.
Regardless of the facts, if an intimate relationship develops during an ongoing attorney-client representation, there is a presumption that the attorney used his or her advantage of the special trust and confidence in the position of authority over a “vulnerable client,” all to the attorney's personal advantage.
For all of these reasons, most attorneys will carefully consider whether it is worth the risk of engaging in an intimate relationship with a client.
Shari L. Klevens is a partner at Dentons and serves on the firm's US Board of Directors. She represents and advises lawyers and insurers on complex claims and is co-chair of Dentons' global insurance sector team. Alanna Clair is a partner at Dentons and focuses on professional liability defense. Shari and Alanna are co-authors of “The Lawyer's Handbook: Ethics Compliance and Claim Avoidance.”
This content has been archived. It is available through our partners, LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law.
To view this content, please continue to their sites.
Not a Lexis Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
Not a Bloomberg Law Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
NOT FOR REPRINT
© 2025 ALM Global, LLC, All Rights Reserved. Request academic re-use from www.copyright.com. All other uses, submit a request to [email protected]. For more information visit Asset & Logo Licensing.
You Might Like
View All![From Hospital Bed to Legal Insights: Lessons in Life, Law, and Lawyering From Hospital Bed to Legal Insights: Lessons in Life, Law, and Lawyering](https://images.law.com/cdn-cgi/image/format=auto,fit=contain/https://images.law.com/texaslawyer/contrib/content/uploads/sites/401/2022/11/maslanka-michael-p-19-767x633.jpg)
From Hospital Bed to Legal Insights: Lessons in Life, Law, and Lawyering
6 minute read![It Was the Best of Times, It Was the Worst of Times It Was the Best of Times, It Was the Worst of Times](https://images.law.com/cdn-cgi/image/format=auto,fit=contain/https://images.law.com/texaslawyer/contrib/content/uploads/sites/401/2023/07/John-Browning-767x633.jpg)
![Nondisparagement Clauses in Divorce: Balancing Family Harmony and Free Speech Nondisparagement Clauses in Divorce: Balancing Family Harmony and Free Speech](https://images.law.com/cdn-cgi/image/format=auto,fit=contain/https://images.law.com/texaslawyer/contrib/content/uploads/sites/403/2023/12/Reiter-Pollack-Siegel_2-767x633.jpg)
Nondisparagement Clauses in Divorce: Balancing Family Harmony and Free Speech
6 minute readTrending Stories
- 1ACC CLO Survey Waves Warning Flags for Boards
- 2States Accuse Trump of Thwarting Court's Funding Restoration Order
- 3Microsoft Becomes Latest Tech Company to Face Claims of Stealing Marketing Commissions From Influencers
- 4Coral Gables Attorney Busted for Stalking Lawyer
- 5Trump's DOJ Delays Releasing Jan. 6 FBI Agents List Under Consent Order
Who Got The Work
J. Brugh Lower of Gibbons has entered an appearance for industrial equipment supplier Devco Corporation in a pending trademark infringement lawsuit. The suit, accusing the defendant of selling knock-off Graco products, was filed Dec. 18 in New Jersey District Court by Rivkin Radler on behalf of Graco Inc. and Graco Minnesota. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Zahid N. Quraishi, is 3:24-cv-11294, Graco Inc. et al v. Devco Corporation.
Who Got The Work
Rebecca Maller-Stein and Kent A. Yalowitz of Arnold & Porter Kaye Scholer have entered their appearances for Hanaco Venture Capital and its executives, Lior Prosor and David Frankel, in a pending securities lawsuit. The action, filed on Dec. 24 in New York Southern District Court by Zell, Aron & Co. on behalf of Goldeneye Advisors, accuses the defendants of negligently and fraudulently managing the plaintiff's $1 million investment. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Vernon S. Broderick, is 1:24-cv-09918, Goldeneye Advisors, LLC v. Hanaco Venture Capital, Ltd. et al.
Who Got The Work
Attorneys from A&O Shearman has stepped in as defense counsel for Toronto-Dominion Bank and other defendants in a pending securities class action. The suit, filed Dec. 11 in New York Southern District Court by Bleichmar Fonti & Auld, accuses the defendants of concealing the bank's 'pervasive' deficiencies in regards to its compliance with the Bank Secrecy Act and the quality of its anti-money laundering controls. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Arun Subramanian, is 1:24-cv-09445, Gonzalez v. The Toronto-Dominion Bank et al.
Who Got The Work
Crown Castle International, a Pennsylvania company providing shared communications infrastructure, has turned to Luke D. Wolf of Gordon Rees Scully Mansukhani to fend off a pending breach-of-contract lawsuit. The court action, filed Nov. 25 in Michigan Eastern District Court by Hooper Hathaway PC on behalf of The Town Residences LLC, accuses Crown Castle of failing to transfer approximately $30,000 in utility payments from T-Mobile in breach of a roof-top lease and assignment agreement. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Susan K. Declercq, is 2:24-cv-13131, The Town Residences LLC v. T-Mobile US, Inc. et al.
Who Got The Work
Wilfred P. Coronato and Daniel M. Schwartz of McCarter & English have stepped in as defense counsel to Electrolux Home Products Inc. in a pending product liability lawsuit. The court action, filed Nov. 26 in New York Eastern District Court by Poulos Lopiccolo PC and Nagel Rice LLP on behalf of David Stern, alleges that the defendant's refrigerators’ drawers and shelving repeatedly break and fall apart within months after purchase. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Joan M. Azrack, is 2:24-cv-08204, Stern v. Electrolux Home Products, Inc.
Featured Firms
Law Offices of Gary Martin Hays & Associates, P.C.
(470) 294-1674
Law Offices of Mark E. Salomone
(857) 444-6468
Smith & Hassler
(713) 739-1250