Attorney-Client Sexual Relations Must be Banned

A little more than a week ago, the Virginia State Bar’s top prosecutor appeared unaware of a rule that prohibits attorneys from having sex with clients, and the 27 other state bars that have adopted it.

We urge the Virginia and Tennessee bars to join this majority and last week gave them the catalyst with a two-part special report on an attorney who preyed on his vulnerable clients.

It’s too late for the six women who accuse Lebanon, Va., attorney Wade Compton of pressuring them for sex or, as two victims claim, of raping them. Compton, 40, represented these indigent and vulnerable women in divorce and child custody matters through Legal Aid. He is now under criminal investigation and recently agreed to give up his license for five years.

He claims that all sexual contact with his clients was consensual, and defends his actions by pointing out that the Virginia Bar does not prohibit this.

For the Bar to maintain that Compton’s severe sanction validates its disciplinary process ignores the 2½ years it took to discipline him, during which time he continued to practice law. It is significant that the bar counsel of the Virginia State Bar told this newspaper: “It probably would be easier to prosecute a charge of misconduct or regulate the profession if there were specific acts prohibited.”

The American Bar Association has advocated a prohibition on sexual relations between attorneys and clients since adopting a rule on the subject in 2002. That rule states: “A lawyer shall not have sexual relations with a client unless a consensual sexual relationship existed between them when the client-lawyer relationship commenced.”

There is a host of supporting reasons:

* A lawyer’s sexual involvement with a client can undercut the professional detachment required for effective representation.
* Clients confide in their counsel, on whom they depend to guide them through the legal system, which creates an opportunity for the lawyer to manipulate a client for the lawyer’s sexual benefit.
* Inserting a lawyer’s personal interests into his representation of a client creates a potential conflict of interest.

The attorney-client relationship is such that a client “may not feel free to rebuff unwanted sexual advances because of fear that such a rejection will either reduce the lawyer’s ardor for the client’s cause or, worse yet, require finding a new lawyer” and risk damaging the client’s legal position, as a 1992 ABA paper laid out.

Most attorneys know that having a sexual liaison with a client is venturing into a minefield of ethical problems, legal experts say. One questioned whether a specific rule prohibiting such conduct would stop an unscrupulous attorney from doing it anyway. We believe it would.

Adopting the ABA rule would eliminate the ambiguity in the existing state bar rules on romantic relationships between clients and attorneys. It would send a clear message to the entire legal profession that this conduct is unethical, obligating attorneys to report it as soon as they become aware of it or face disciplinary charges themselves.

By clarifying their standards, the Virginia and Tennessee bars might push other, as-yet-unknown cases of misconduct to the surface, and ratchet up the pressure on all of their members to refrain from sexual liaisons with clients.

As a disciplinary tool, the rule would make it easier to prosecute this kind of misconduct. It would shorten the time it takes to discipline attorneys who leverage their expertise for their sexual benefit. It also could reduce the risk that these attorneys will prey on new victims before the Bar can act.

At its worst, the rule could ban a relationship that is relatively harmless.

We believe the advantages substantially outweigh any drawbacks.

The state bars have a mission to regulate the legal profession and to protect the public. Adopting a rule along the lines of the ABA prohibition will enhance their ability to do both.