Opinion ID: 1324563
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Count I Complaint of Deborah L. Stevenson

Text: Ms. Deborah L. Stevenson was incarcerated in a federal prison in Florida in June 2004 when her husband filed for divorce in Mercer County, West Virginia. The Family Court of Mercer County appointed Mr. Chittum to serve as Ms. Stevenson's guardian ad litem and represent her in the divorce proceeding. He was appointed pursuant to a pro bono program and received no fee or reimbursement of expenses. After receiving this appointment, Mr. Chittum initiated a flirtatious long distance telephone and letter writing relationship with Ms. Stevenson. However, Mr. Chittum and Ms. Stevenson never met each other in person. The final hearing in the divorce proceeding occurred on September 16, 2004. The following day, September 17, 2004, Mr. Chittum sent Ms. Stevenson a letter detailing the final hearing and discussing how he could assist her with a petition for a federal writ of habeas corpus that she was planning to file pro se. Thereafter, Mr. Chittum continued sending Ms. Stevenson flirtatious handwritten letters. In one such letter, he discussed the possibility of getting Ms. Stevenson transferred to Alderson, West Virginia, noting that he could visit her there and raising the possibility of contact visits. Ultimately, Ms. Stevenson was transferred to Alderson without Mr. Chittum's assistance and he has not visited or communicated with her since the transfer occurred. [3] Shortly after the final divorce order was entered, Ms. Stevenson's ex-husband delivered her personal belongings to Mr. Chittum's office. On October 26, 2004, Mr. Chittum sent Ms. Stevenson photographs of these personal belongings and discussed his efforts to assist her with the writ of habeas corpus petition. Thereafter, Mr. Chittum reviewed her pro se writ of habeas corpus petition in November 2004. The personal correspondence between Mr. Chittum and Ms. Stevenson continued until March 2005. Approximately six months later, Ms. Stevenson filed her complaint against Mr. Chittum, on September 12, 2005, alleging that he stopped corresponding with her about her legal matters and stopped accepting her collect telephone calls from prison. The complaint also alleges that she made numerous requests that Mr. Chittum deliver her personal belongings to her grandmother and that he repeatedly failed to do so. Mr. Chittum made two attempts to deliver these items to Ms. Stevenson's grandmother who lived in Virginia. On both occasions, Mr. Chittum contacted Ms. Stevenson's grandmother and agreed upon a delivery time and date, and paid someone to load, haul and deliver the items to the grandmother's residence in Virginia. On both occasions, Ms. Stevenson's grandmother was not at home when the delivery arrived. It appears from the record that Ms. Stevenson's grandmother thereafter remarried and moved to Colorado. In August 2008, Mr. Chittum received a letter from an individual in Arizona requesting the items be sent there. Mr. Chittum could not verify whether Ms. Stevenson designated that individual to receive the personal items. To the contrary, in a January 20, 2009, letter to counsel for the Board, and in her deposition for this matter, Ms. Stevenson requests that the personal items be sent to an individual named Diane Lavore, who lives in Annandale, Virginia.
As a result of Mr. Chittum's failure to successfully deliver Ms. Stevenson's personal belongings to her grandmother in a timely manner, the Hearing Panel Subcommittee found that he violated Rule 1.3 of the Rules of Professional Conduct, which provides: Rule 1.3 Diligence A lawyer shall act with reasonable diligence and promptness in representing a client. Our review of the record does not support this conclusion. Mr. Chittum contacted Ms. Stevenson's grandmother, agreed on a time and date at which he could deliver the belongings and subsequently paid someone to load, haul and deliver the items to her residence in Virginia. Ms. Stevenson's grandmother was not at home when the delivery arrived. After this delivery failed, Mr. Chittum again contacted Ms. Stevenson's grandmother and again they agreed on a time and date at which she would accept delivery. Mr. Chittum again paid someone to load, haul and deliver the belongings to Virginia, and once again, Ms. Stevenson's grandmother was not at home at the agreed upon time. After this second delivery failed, Mr. Chittum kept the belongings in storage. Mr. Chittum left a voice mail message for Ms. Stevenson's grandmother after the second delivery failed, but did not receive a return phone call. The Hearing Panel Subcommittee determined Ms. Stevenson's grandmother remarried and moved sometime after these failed deliveries occurred. Based on the record before us, we do not find that Mr. Chittum's failure to successfully deliver Ms. Stevenson's personal belongings to her grandmother constitutes a violation of Rule 1.3.
The Hearing Panel Subcommittee found that Mr. Chittum's failure to respond to Ms. Stevenson and her grandmother's inquiries about her legal matters and personal belongings constituted a violation of Rule 1.4(a) of the Rules of Professional Conduct, which states: Rule 1.4 Communication (a) A lawyer shall keep a client reasonably informed about the status of a matter and promptly comply with reasonable requests for information. Our review of the record indicates that Mr. Chittum did communicate with Ms. Stevenson's grandmother about the personal belongings and twice attempted to deliver these items at his own expense. Furthermore, Mr. Chittum communicated with Ms. Stevenson and kept her fully advised on the divorce proceedings. The divorce proceeding concluded in September 2004, and Mr. Chittum continued communicating with Ms. Stevenson through March 2005. Other than Mr. Chittum's retention of her personal belongings following the conclusion of the matter, Ms. Stevenson was pleased with his handling of her divorce proceeding. Mr. Chittum agreed to advise Ms. Stevenson on her pro se writ of habeas corpus petition and did so. In a December 2, 2004, letter from Mr. Chittum to Ms. Stevenson, he states that he reviewed her petition and have had another attorney in my office (read it) ... and we believe it is all you can do. Mr. Chittum did not agree to represent Ms. Stevenson regarding her writ of habeas corpus petition. Ms. Stevenson states that Mr. Chittum thereafter stopped corresponding with her and refused to accept her collect telephone calls from prison. At that time, Mr. Chittum no longer represented her. The pro bono appointment was only for the divorce proceeding and did not obligate Mr. Chittum to provide indefinite, unpaid legal assistance to Ms. Stevenson. We therefore do not find that Mr. Chittum violated Rule 1.4(a) of the Rules of Professional Conduct.
The Hearing Panel Subcommittee also determined that Mr. Chittum's pursuit of a long distance personal relationship with a client in a vulnerable situation reflected adversely on his character and fitness to practice law. While there was no physical contact between the parties, the Board found that Mr. Chittum attempted to develop a sexual relationship with Ms. Stevenson which constituted a violation of Rules 8.4(a), 8.4(d) and 8.4(g) of the Rules of Professional Conduct, which provide: Rule 8.4 Misconduct It is professional misconduct for a lawyer to: (a) violate or attempt to violate the Rules of Professional Conduct, knowingly assist or induce another to do so, or do so through the acts of another; ... (d) engage in conduct that is prejudicial to the administration of justice; ... (g) have sexual relations with a client whom the lawyer personally represents during the legal representation unless a consensual sexual relationship existed between them at the commencement of the lawyer/client relationship. For purposes of this rule, sexual relations means sexual intercourse or any touching of the sexual or other intimate parts of a client or causing such client to touch the sexual or other intimate parts of the lawyer for the purposes of arousing or gratifying the sexual desire of either party or as a means of abuse. Rule 8.4(g) of the Rules of Professional Conduct provides that it is professional misconduct to have sexual relations with a client whom the lawyer personally represents during the legal representation unless a consensual sexual relationship existed between them at the commencement of the lawyer/client relationship. Based on the plain language of Rule 8.4(g), we find that Mr. Chittum did not have sexual relations with Ms. Stevenson. Rule 8.4(g) defines sexual relations as: ... sexual intercourse or any touching of the sexual or other intimate parts of a client or causing such client to touch the sexual or other intimate parts of the lawyer for the purposes of arousing or gratifying the sexual desire of either party or as a means of abuse. Mr. Chittum and Ms. Stevenson never physically met each other. Their relationship existed solely through telephone calls and letters. Mr. Chittum never attempted to physically have sexual intercourse with Ms. Stevenson or touch her in any manner. Mr. Chittum's telephone calls and letters implied the possibility of having a romantic relationship with Ms. Stevenson at some future date. This conduct does not rise to the level of sexual relations as defined by Rule 8.4(g). However, Mr. Chittum's flirtatious remarks were misconduct under Rule 8.4(a), because they were an attempt to establish a sexual relationship with his client. We condemn this conduct and find that Mr. Chittum's behavior was inappropriate and prejudicial to the administration of justice because his client was incarcerated and in a vulnerable position. Under the circumstances, Ms. Stevenson might have felt obligated to respond to Mr. Chittum's flirtatious overtures to ensure that he would fully pursue her interests in the divorce proceeding. We therefore agree with the Board's finding that Mr. Chittum's behavior was also a violation of Rule 8.4(d) of the Rules of Professional Conduct.