Opinion ID: 1614947
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: sexual relationship with client

Text: Based on the record made before the Committee, the testimony presented to the referee, and the transcript of the recorded conversation between Denton and K.J., the referee determined that there was clearly some sort of sexual relationship engaged in between [K.J. and Denton] during the course of [Denton's] representation. Although Denton adamantly denied having any sexual contact whatsoever with K.J., the referee noted: This is more than a he said/she said confrontation. In addition to [K.J.'s] extensive and graphic testimony before both the Committee on Inquiry and the hearing before me, there is the tape recording. [Denton's] explanations for his statements on the tape recording are neither convincing nor plausible.... I saw and heard [K.J.] testify. I saw and heard [Jane Doe] testify.... I find that, despite any past problems either of them may have experienced, the testimony of [K.J. and Jane Doe] regarding [Denton] was credible. Next, the referee determined whether Denton's solicitation of and engagement in a sexual relationship with a client constituted a violation of the Code of Professional Responsibility. In consideration of the facts that Denton represented K.J. in a contested custody proceeding and was well aware of K.J.'s psychological and psychiatric history, the referee found by clear and convincing evidence that Denton's conduct violated Canon 1, DR 1-102(A)(5) (conduct that is prejudicial to administration of justice); DR 1-102(A)(6) (conduct that adversely reflects on his or her fitness to practice law); and Canon 7, DR 7-101(A)(3) (lawyer shall not intentionally prejudice or damage client during course of professional relationship except as required under DR 7-102(B)).