Opinion ID: 2637826
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 8

Heading: Magistrate Disqualifies Respondent

Text: Following Respondent's depositions of the parties' adult son and Mrs. E's husband, Mr. E's lawyer filed his second motion to disqualify Respondent. In the second motion to disqualify, Mr. E's lawyer detailed the questions Respondent asked, his manner in doing so, as well as Respondent's relationship with Mrs. E. Mr. E's lawyer had previously filed a motion to disqualify Respondent on November 14, 2006, alleging a personal, romantic, relationship between Mrs. E and Respondent based on an email sent to Mrs. E by Petitioner. The magistrate denied this motion. Respondent testified that he did not take this motion seriously, though he thereafter acted more cautiously in his relationship with Mrs. E and avoided sleeping in the same bed with Mrs. E when he spent the night at her house. Unlike the previous motion to disqualify Respondent, Mr. E's attorney specifically alleged a sexual relationship between Respondent during the course of the representation. [14] Further, counsel for Mr. E detailed what he characterized as Respondent's irrelevant questions during the depositions, which caused [the] case to be vexatious and contentious. Counsel also alleged that Respondent based his advice [to Mrs. E in the divorce] on his desire for the sexual relationship. In ruling on the motion to disqualify, the magistrate considered, among other things, the transcript of Respondent's deposition of the parties' adult son. The record in this case demonstrates Respondent questioned the parties' adult son on the following subjects:  Whether his father ever had any inappropriate sexual contact with anybody. [Respondent went on to ask about alleged sexual encounters involving his father including one between Mr. E and his then 10-year-old daughter, the witness' little sister.]  Whether the witness would always be the guy who holds down the woman so your father can abuse her. [In context, this reference included the witness' 10-year-old sister.]  Whether his father had ever done you (the son). [It is clear from the context that Respondent was asking the son if his father had ever sexually assaulted him.]  Whether the son considered his father the good guy based upon the detailed sexual misconduct of Respondent.  Whether the son had called his mother a whore and if so, why. [15] In response to the latter question, the parties' adult son explained that he believed his mother was having an affair with Respondent. This deposition was heated. [16] The magistrate considered not only Respondent's questioning of the parties' adult son and Mrs. E's husband, but also the fact that Respondent did not deny that the relationship between Respondent and Mrs. E had been sexual in nature. Respondent appealed the magistrate's order to the district court. The district court affirmed the magistrate's order of disqualification. In its written order, the district court found that the court's file replete with indications that Respondent's relationship with Mrs. E, contributed to enormous hostility between the parties and their lawyers. [17]