Was 3-Year Suspension Adequate Discipline for Sexting With Client's Underage Daughter?
Several ethics attorneys said the disciplinary sentence, which will require Toman to undergo a lot of litigation if he wants to have his license reinstated, shows that the Disciplinary Board is taking these matters seriously.
May 14, 2018 at 08:30 PM
6 minute read
Photo: Shutterstock
When the Pennsylvania Supreme Court last week agreed to suspend a man's law license for three years after he was caught sexting with his client's minor daughter, some in the legal community questioned whether the sentence was too lenient. However, according to several ethics attorneys, the punishment may be harsher than it seems, and could signal that the state Disciplinary Board is taking matters involving sexual misconduct more seriously than before.
On May 9, the justices agreed to suspend Scranton attorney Jeffrey Toman's law license for three years after he pleaded no contest to conduct including sending the 14-year-old victim a picture of his penis. The victim, according to court documents, was not only the daughter of a client, but she was also the subject of the custody battle that the attorney had been hired to handle.
The three-year suspension allows Toman to petition to have his license reinstated, which has left some questioning whether the severity of the conduct and the fact that it was so directly connected to a case merited harsher punishment. But several ethics attorneys said the disciplinary sentence, which will require Toman to undergo a lot of litigation if he wants to have his license reinstated, shows that the Disciplinary Board is taking these matters seriously.
“In only a few years the thinking about these issues has changed,” white-collar and ethics attorney Ellen Brotman said, citing the growing national conversation about sexual harassment, commonly called the #MeToo movement, as well as the relatively recent scandals that led two state Supreme Court justices to resign over explicit emails.
In particular, Brotman noted a 2014 decision where an attorney was suspended for only six months after he was convicted of covertly filming up the skirts of two women—one of whom was a minor—at a public shopping center. The length of the suspension is significant, as any sentence greater than a year and a day requires an attorney to petition the court to have his or her license reinstated, and, according to several attorneys familiar with the disciplinary process, there is no guarantee that an attorney's license will be reinstated.
“I think it shows that the board understands the seriousness of the offense, and the particular harm it causes to the victims,” Brotman said.
Toman's case, according to court records, involved the 14-year-old daughter of a client whose phone number he allegedly obtained as a way to “better represent her and her mother in the legal battle.” However, instead of discussing the case, Toman began asking the minor sex-related questions and requesting pictures of her in her bra and panties, or in a bikini, the report said. According to the police report, Toman also sent the minor a picture of his penis. On one occasion Toman also sent her a video-chat request, and when she answered it he was masturbating, the report said.
Although Toman was initially charged with three third-degree felonies and a first-degree misdemeanor, he eventually pleaded no contest to only the misdemeanor charge of corruption of minors, for which he served some prison time.
In late March, Toman and the Office of Disciplinary Counsel agreed to a joint petition recommending the three-year suspension. As part of that agreement, the ODC noted that Toman had “manipulated his attorney-client relationship,” but also noted that he had been cooperative with the criminal and disciplinary processes, he had served prison time for the offense and he did not hold public office.
Two similar cases the petition cited where attorneys received harsher disciplinary sentences involved public figures. Those attorneys either had their licenses suspended for five years, or they were disbarred, which still allows for attorneys to petition to have their licenses reinstated after five years.
Ethics attorney Jennifer Ellis said that, given the offenses, ”I can see why people want to see the book thrown at the person.” However, she said the punishment didn't seem unreasonable given how the court has previously handled misdemeanor convictions involving the corruption of minors.
A finding that Toman had actual physical contact with the minor, Ellis said, could have significantly elevated the punishment.
She also noted that a disciplinary sentence not only aims to protect the public from that attorney for the amount of time the board deems necessary, but the length of time also serves as a bit of an informal warning to the board regarding how seriously it should scrutinize the attorney's petition seeking reinstatement.
“They're saying you're more than halfway to disbarment, buddy, and we want the future board to keep that fact in mind,” Ellis said. “You're going to have to work all the more hard to prove to us that you should be able to return to the practice.”
Pittsburgh ethics attorney Craig Simpson also noted that, although the order only calls for the license to be suspended, attorneys often lose much more than that.
“If you've been out of practice for three years, you've lost your practice, you've lost your clientele, you've lost your standing in the community, you've lost your reputation,” Simpson said. “There's a whole lot more that's involved than just losing your license.”
Getting a law license reinstated is arduous, attorneys agreed. The process begins with a lengthy questionnaire, before heading through a hearing committee, a hearing before the Disciplinary Board, and then finally coming to the Supreme Court. At each level there can be significant briefing and argument, and attorneys agreed that there is no guarantee anyone will regain their license once they've lost it.
Ethics attorney Stuart Haimowitz said there is a very good chance Toman will never be able to practice law in Pennsylvania again.
“No one has a right to practice law. No one has a right to be reinstated,” he said. “Following a suspension, you have the burden to show that the person who was suspended has gone through a period of rehabilitation and that the conduct that caused the suspension is not likely to recur.”
Haimowitz said the sentence seemed a little lenient in his estimation, but “within the ballpark” of punishments he had seen for similar conduct.
Although Toman's case may move out of the public eye soon and the attorney may seek reinstatement after a few years, the significance of the case may live on indefinitely because, so far, there is little disciplinary case law dealing directly with emerging forms of communication, like sexting, or messaging people through any form of social media.
“It could just as easily have been an email, Facebook, or WhatsApp, or any technology where you're not engaging in physical contact,” Ellis said. “It will be cited to whenever we're talking about improper sexual communication with a minor.”
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
© 2024 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 AllMatt's Corner: Pa.R.D.E. 217—Obligations of a Formerly Admitted Attorney
2 minute readPa. High Court's Revision of Rule 7.1 Tightens Previous Guidance on Firm Names
6 minute readIf You Are Too 'Busy' to Communicate With Your Client, You Better Think Again
5 minute readTrending Stories
- 1Call for Nominations: Elite Trial Lawyers 2025
- 2Senate Judiciary Dems Release Report on Supreme Court Ethics
- 3Senate Confirms Last 2 of Biden's California Judicial Nominees
- 4Morrison & Foerster Doles Out Year-End and Special Bonuses, Raises Base Compensation for Associates
- 5Tom Girardi to Surrender to Federal Authorities on Jan. 7
Who Got The Work
Michael G. Bongiorno, Andrew Scott Dulberg and Elizabeth E. Driscoll from Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr have stepped in to represent Symbotic Inc., an A.I.-enabled technology platform that focuses on increasing supply chain efficiency, and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The case, filed Oct. 2 in Massachusetts District Court by the Brown Law Firm on behalf of Stephen Austen, accuses certain officers and directors of misleading investors in regard to Symbotic's potential for margin growth by failing to disclose that the company was not equipped to timely deploy its systems or manage expenses through project delays. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Nathaniel M. Gorton, is 1:24-cv-12522, Austen v. Cohen et al.
Who Got The Work
Edmund Polubinski and Marie Killmond of Davis Polk & Wardwell have entered appearances for data platform software development company MongoDB and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The action, filed Oct. 7 in New York Southern District Court by the Brown Law Firm, accuses the company's directors and/or officers of falsely expressing confidence in the company’s restructuring of its sales incentive plan and downplaying the severity of decreases in its upfront commitments. The case is 1:24-cv-07594, Roy v. Ittycheria et al.
Who Got The Work
Amy O. Bruchs and Kurt F. Ellison of Michael Best & Friedrich have entered appearances for Epic Systems Corp. in a pending employment discrimination lawsuit. The suit was filed Sept. 7 in Wisconsin Western District Court by Levine Eisberner LLC and Siri & Glimstad on behalf of a project manager who claims that he was wrongfully terminated after applying for a religious exemption to the defendant's COVID-19 vaccine mandate. The case, assigned to U.S. Magistrate Judge Anita Marie Boor, is 3:24-cv-00630, Secker, Nathan v. Epic Systems Corporation.
Who Got The Work
David X. Sullivan, Thomas J. Finn and Gregory A. Hall from McCarter & English have entered appearances for Sunrun Installation Services in a pending civil rights lawsuit. The complaint was filed Sept. 4 in Connecticut District Court by attorney Robert M. Berke on behalf of former employee George Edward Steins, who was arrested and charged with employing an unregistered home improvement salesperson. The complaint alleges that had Sunrun informed the Connecticut Department of Consumer Protection that the plaintiff's employment had ended in 2017 and that he no longer held Sunrun's home improvement contractor license, he would not have been hit with charges, which were dismissed in May 2024. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Jeffrey A. Meyer, is 3:24-cv-01423, Steins v. Sunrun, Inc. et al.
Who Got The Work
Greenberg Traurig shareholder Joshua L. Raskin has entered an appearance for boohoo.com UK Ltd. in a pending patent infringement lawsuit. The suit, filed Sept. 3 in Texas Eastern District Court by Rozier Hardt McDonough on behalf of Alto Dynamics, asserts five patents related to an online shopping platform. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Rodney Gilstrap, is 2:24-cv-00719, Alto Dynamics, LLC v. boohoo.com UK Limited.
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