People v. Crossman, 93SA49
Decision Date | 19 April 1993 |
Docket Number | No. 93SA49,93SA49 |
Citation | 850 P.2d 708 |
Parties | The PEOPLE of the State of Colorado, Complainant, v. William V. CROSSMAN, Jr., Attorney-Respondent. |
Court | Colorado Supreme Court |
Linda Donnelly, Disciplinary Counsel, Sandra J. Pfaff, Asst. Disciplinary Counsel, Denver, for complainant.
Jeffrey A. Springer, Denver, for respondent.
The respondent in this attorney disciplinary proceeding solicited sexual favors in exchange for legal fees on three separate occasions with three prospective clients. The assistant disciplinary counsel and the respondent entered into a stipulation, agreement, and conditional admission of misconduct. See C.R.C.P. 241.18. The parties have recommended that the respondent be disciplined by a period of suspension between ninety days and one year and one day. An inquiry panel of the Supreme Court Grievance Committee approved the stipulation and agreement, with the recommendation that the respondent be suspended for one year and one day, and with the additional provision that at the time the respondent applies for reinstatement, he present more detailed information as to the cause of the misconduct and the likelihood of its recurrence. The respondent has not excepted to the inquiry panel's action, or asked that the stipulation be withdrawn. We accept the stipulation and agreement, and the recommendation of the inquiry panel. We order that the respondent be suspended for one year and one day, that he satisfy certain conditions before he may be reinstated, and that he pay the costs of these proceedings.
The respondent was admitted to the bar of this court on October 4, 1968, is registered as an attorney upon this court's official records, and is subject to the jurisdiction of this court and its grievance committee. C.R.C.P. 241.1(b). In the stipulation and agreement, the respondent and the assistant disciplinary counsel stipulated to the following facts and violations of the Code of Professional Responsibility.
On or about June 10, 1991, the respondent told a prospective female client in a dissolution of marriage case that he would reduce his usual legal fee in return for sexual favors. The respondent asked the prospective client to come to the respondent's office wearing "a teddy that you can see through, with nothing under it ... no need to bring anything else...."
The respondent admitted that his conduct violated DR 1-102(A)(6) ( ), and DR 5-101(A) ( ). See People v. Zeilinger, 814 P.2d 808, 809 (Colo.1991) ( ); People v. Gibbons, 685 P.2d 168, 175 (Colo.1984) ( ); see generally Gregory G. Sarno, Annotation, Sexual Misconduct as Ground for Disciplining Attorney or Judge, 43 A.L.R. 4th 1062 (1986 & Supp.1992).
In a meeting in his office on or about August 13, 1991, the respondent offered to assist another prospective client, who had consulted him about a dissolution of marriage, to obtain employment with a construction company. Part of her job would be to offer sexual favors to employees of the company. The respondent asked the prospective client about her sexual habits, asked her for sexual contact, and kissed her breast. He also suggested that he would reduce his usual fee in return for sexual favors. The respondent did not, however, reduce his legal fees in return for sexual favors, and he did not assist the prospective client to obtain any kind of employment. In the stipulation, the respondent denied that he had the intent or the ability to assist the prospective client to obtain the type of employment that he discussed with her. On August 12, 1992, the respondent pleaded guilty to, and was convicted of, harassment arising from his physical contact with the prospective client, a class 3 misdemeanor, in violation of section 18-9-111(1)(a), 8B C.R.S. (1986). 1 Although not specified in the stipulation, materials submitted to the Grievance Committee by the respondent indicate that he was sentenced to a term of supervised probation.
As the respondent has stipulated, his conduct violated DR 1-102(A)(6) ( ), and DR 5-101(A) ( ), as well as C.R.C.P. 241.6(5) ( ).
On September 5, 1991, the respondent told an undercover agent employed by the Arapahoe County District Attorney's Office, who was posing as a prospective client, that he would reduce his usual legal fee in return for her sexual favors. The respondent asked the undercover agent to meet him later at a hotel. He later met the agent at a motel restaurant, but did not use his room reservation. By the foregoing conduct, the respondent again violated DR 1-102(A)(6) and DR 5-101(A).
In the stipulation and agreement, the respondent and the assistant disciplinary counsel recommended that the respondent be suspended from the practice of law for a period between ninety days and one year and one day. The inquiry panel approved the stipulation and recommended that the respondent be suspended for one year and one day, and that at the time he applies for reinstatement, the respondent present more detailed information as to the cause of the misconduct and the likelihood of its recurrence.
Under the American Bar Association's Standards for Imposing Lawyer Sanctions (1986 & Supp.1992) (ABA Standards ), in the absence of mitigating or aggravating factors, "[s]uspension is generally appropriate when a lawyer knows of a conflict of interest and does not fully disclose to a client the possible effect of that conflict, and causes injury or potential injury to a client." ABA Standards 4.32. See also id. at 5.12 (); id. at 7.2 ().
We agree with the Supreme Court of Florida that "[i]mproprieties that directly and intentionally harm others always are serious offenses in the eyes of this Court." Florida Bar v. Samaha, 557 So.2d 1349, 1350 (Fla.1990) (emphasis in original). Conduct such as the respondent's "is particularly repugnant while the client is dependent upon the attorney for guidance and assistance." In re Adams, 428 N.E.2d 786, 787 (Ind.1981). The lawyer stands in a fiduciary relationship with the client and by making unsolicited sexual advances to a client "perverts the very essence of the lawyer-client relationship." In re Disciplinary Proceedings Against Gibson, 124 Wis.2d 466, 369 N.W.2d 695, 699-700 (1985), appeal dism'd sub nom. Gibson v. Board of Attorneys Professional Responsibility of Wisconsin, 474 U.S. 976, 106 S.Ct. 375, 88 L.Ed.2d 330 (1985).
When confronted with professional misconduct such as the respondent's, courts in other jurisdictions have found suspension warranted. See Samaha, 557 So.2d 1349 ( ); In re Wood, 265 Ind. 616, 358 N.E.2d 128 (1976) ( ); Committee on Professional Ethics & Conduct of the Iowa State Bar Ass'n v. Hill, 436 N.W.2d 57 (Iowa 1989) ( ); In re Littleton, 719 S.W.2d 772 (Mo.1986) ( ); Dayton Bar Ass'n v....
To continue reading
Request your trial-
In re Ashy
...for legal fees on three separate occasions with three prospective clients (including, in one case, kissing client's breast). 850 P.2d 708 (Colo.1993). The court found that the conduct violated DR 1-102(A)(6) (engaging in conduct adversely reflecting on fitness to practice law) and DR 5-101(......
-
Lawyer Disciplinary Bd. v. Hatfield
...potential clients, we nevertheless find these cases to be helpful. We also are aided by cases from other jurisdictions. For example, in People v. Crossman , an attorney was suspended for one year and one day for soliciting sexual favors in exchange for legal fees on three separate occasions......
-
People v. Martin, 94SA410
...894 P.2d 758, 760 (Colo.1995) (sexual harassment of three employees warrants suspension for one year and one day); People v. Crossman, 850 P.2d 708, 710-11 (Colo.1993) (lawyer suspended for one year and one day for solicitation of sexual favors in exchange for legal fee). See also People v.......
-
People v. Ritland
...859 P.2d 902, 905 (Colo.1993); People v. Brailsford, 933 P.2d 592, 595 (Colo.1997). 38.People v. Galindo, 884 P.2d 1109, 1112 (Colo.1994). 39.People v. Crossman, 850 P.2d 708, 711–12 (Colo.1993); Brailsford, 933 P.2d at 595. 40.People v. Babinski, 951 P.2d 1240, 1242 (Colo.1998). 41.See In ......
-
Prohibited by Rule Sexual Harassment as Attorney Misconduct
...(per curiam). [40] Id. at 759. [41] Id. at 759–60. [42] Id. at 760 (citing People v. Good, 893 P.2d 101 (Colo. 1995); People v. Crossman, 850 P.2d 708, 711 (Colo. 1993); People v. Zeilinger, 814 P.2d 808, 809 (Colo. 1991); and People v. Gibbons, 685 P.2d 168, 175 (Colo. 1984)). [43] Id. (ci......
-
Disciplinary Opinion
...People v. Brailsford, 933 P.2d 592, 595 (Colo. 1997). [38] People v. Galindo, 884 P.2d 1109, 1112 (Colo. 1994). [39] People v. Crossman, 850 P.2d 708, 711-12 (Colo. 1993); Brailsford, 933 P.2d at 595. [40] People v. Babinski, 951 P.2d 1240, 1242 (Colo. 1998). [41] See In re Attorney F., 285......
-
Gender and Justice in the Colorado Courts
...Judicial District, and James Benway, Director of Human Resources. Staff support is provided by Virginia Leavitt. 8. People v. Crossman, 850 P.2d 708 (Colo. 1993). 9. See People v. Dawson, 894 P.2d 756 (Colo. 1995) (sexual assault on female file clerk); People v. Good, 893 P.2d 101 (Colo. 19......