Opinion ID: 1749026
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Williams charge.

Text: 1. Evidence. Heather Williams testified that in the fall of 2000, she was experiencing difficulty obtaining court-ordered visitation with her son, who was in the physical care of his father. Seeking legal assistance, she made an appointment with McGrath in early November 2000. On her initial visit to his office, Williams was accompanied by her mother. McGrath indicated his retainer was $1500, and Williams agreed to find the money. McGrath said he would get the pertinent documents from the courthouse. On December 29, 2000, McGrath called Williams and asked her to meet him the next day, Saturday, at his office. Williams went to McGrath's office on December 30 alone. She gave the respondent $300 in cash, which McGrath accepted. McGrath told her the only obstacle to him getting started on her case was her payment of the retainer. In response to her statement that $1500 was a lot of money, McGrath told her she could just pay out-of-pocket expenses. Williams testified: He said that since he was doing something nice for me that I could do something nice for him. When she asked him what he meant, McGrath said, What do nice girls do for boys? At that point, Williams began to get the idea that McGrath was proposing sex in exchange for fees. Trying to ignore the implication, she responded, Cook them dinner? McGrath laughed, but then asked, What wouldn't you do to get your son back? According to Williams, McGrath then asked her if she wanted to fool around on the couch. He also told her what days his secretary was out of the office, and that sheWilliamscould come in on those days. He said Williams would not have to pay him any money. When Williams began making excuses for needing to leave, McGrath told her to take the weekend to think about his proposition. Upset, Williams immediately left. Shortly thereafter, Williams called the respondent's office and told his secretary that she had decided to hire a different attorney. She then went to McGrath's office and picked up the papers he had obtained from the courthouse as well as her $300 payment. On cross-examination, Williams acknowledged that she suffered from a bipolar disorder, for which she has been hospitalized and for which she takes medication. Williams denied that her illness affected her memory or her ability to tell the truth. Williams also admitted on cross-examination that she had failed to make court-ordered child support payments. The respondent's attorney also questioned Williams concerning a statement she made in her complaint to the board that McGrath is known for doing this and it has been going on for quite some time. When asked by McGrath's attorney about the basis for this statement, Williams could identify only one personVicki Riegelwho had had a similar proposal from the respondent (sex for fees) when he was acting as Riegel's attorney. Attorney Robert Box also testified at the hearing. He agreed to represent Williams in her visitation dispute after she terminated McGrath's representation. Box said Williams told him about McGrath's proposal in early January 2001. Box recalled that Williams appeared ... somewhat embarrassed, upset and basically concerned and didn't know what to do. He gave her information for making an ethics complaint against the respondent. [6] McGrath testified that he was sixty years old and had been practicing law since 1971, primarily in the personal injury and dissolution areas. At the time of hearing, McGrath was in his fourth marriage. He was unmarried during the year 2000 and the first part of 2001. The respondent recalled Williams first came to his office with her mother, seeking assistance with a visitation dispute. He told her he would need to be paid a retainer before accepting her case, but he would at least take a look at the court file. Upon reviewing the court file, he noted Williams' prior attorney had withdrawn due to nonpayment of fees. McGrath claimed there was a second meeting between him and Williams after he obtained the court file and before the December 30 visit. He testified that at this second meeting, Williams told him she was seeing a therapist for her problems with men. She also stated she wanted custody, not just visitation, and that she was behind in her child support payments. McGrath told her she would have to start paying child support to have a chance of getting custody, and that a custody action would be much more expensive that a modification of visitation. McGrath testified the third and final meeting between them occurred on Saturday, December 30, 2000, at Williams' request. He advised her at that time that he would handle the visitation issue on a pro bono basis if she would pay the out-of-pocket expenses. He told her he would not be willing to represent her on the same basis in a custody dispute due to the amount of time that would be involved. Finally, McGrath said he would need to talk to her previous lawyer and her therapist before he would be willing to start a custody modification action. Williams, he claimed, did not think it was necessary for him to speak to her former lawyer or her therapist. According to McGrath, Williams indicated the prior lawyer had made improper suggestions to her and had used her nonpayment as an excuse to withdraw after she objected to those suggestions. McGrath says he concluded this meeting by telling Williams to think about what she wanted to do. The respondent denied that Williams made a payment at this meeting, but he testified that she apparently must have done so because his secretary later found three hundred dollars lying on the floor in front of his desk. McGrath testified the following week Williams called his office and said she was going to see another lawyer. Later, she picked up the documents from his office, and her money was returned to her. McGrath denied that he ever made any offers to Williams to exchange sex for legal fees. He specifically denied making any statement about what nice girls do. The respondent also asserted he did not have a couch in his office and that his grandson was in another room of his law office on December 30, 2000. [7] McGrath claimed it was not unusual for him to meet with clients when his staff was not there. When asked whether he could explain why Williams would falsely accuse him of sexual improprieties, McGrath suggested she came up with a reason that she could tell somebody about why she didn't want me involved in her case. He said she was upset when he insisted that she make her support payments before he could do anything on her case, and perhaps she did not like his advice. But he categorically denied that he ever said anything to that woman about sex for fees. 2. Commission's findings. Because we give weight to the commission's factual findings, particularly with respect to witness credibility, we set out its findings concerning the Williams charge: In respondent's first meeting alone with Heather Williams, he offered in words or substance that in exchange for sex he would represent her in her visitation dispute. Words to the effect that since he was doing something nice for her, she could something nice for him, followed by a question of whether she wanted to fool around on the couch could reasonably be interpreted to be an offer of legal services in exchange for sex. This is particularly true where respondent suggested meeting with Ms. Williams on Tuesday and Thursday evenings when no one else would be present in the office. Ms. Williams is young appearing and physically attractive. The testimony of Heather Williams was credible and compelling. . . . . .... The respondent's testimony that he did not make the improper statements to Heather Williams ... was not credible when all of the contrary evidence is considered. The commission member who dissented from the commission's determination that the board had proved count I did not entirely disagree with the commission's factual findings with respect to this count. This commissioner wrote: I find that the testimony of Heather Williams, corroborated by the testimony of Attorney Robert Box as to her statements at a time shortly after the alleged solicitation, shows that Ms. Williams believed at the time, and believed as she testified in the hearing, that respondent made sexual advances to her in a proposed exchange for legal fees. I have no reason to believe that she was not telling the truth as she saw it.... . . . . ... In light of the denials of respondent, and in light of the extensive and credible character evidence respondent has presented, I find that Complainant has not met its high burden of proof. 3. Our findings. In considering the evidence, as well as the commission's findings, we are persuaded the board has proven by a convincing preponderance of the evidence that McGrath solicited sexual favors from Williams in payment for his legal services. Like the commission, we find Williams' testimony credible. Any possible dissatisfaction with McGrath's advice seems to be a very unlikely impetus for the fabrication of Williams' accusations. Moreover, there is nothing in the record that would implicate Williams' mental health as a factor in her comprehension of reality. We have considered the testimony of several respected members of the bench, bar, and local community who attested to McGrath's reliability, integrity and truthfulness. But the respondent's generally good character does not mean he has no flaws or weaknesses. We are convinced Heather Williams has brought to our attention a flaw or weakness in the respondent's character, one that naturally would be hidden from the professional associates of McGrath who testified at the hearing. In sum, the character evidence introduced by the respondent is not sufficient to overcome the credible and compelling testimony of the complainant. Therefore, we agree with the commission that the board has proven count I of its complaint.