Summary
The Minnesota Supreme Court reviewed a stipulated attorney-discipline matter involving sexual harassment of a law student under the respondent's supervision and attempts to pressure the student to recant complaints. The court imposed an indefinite suspension, with no right to petition for reinstatement for at least 90 days, and required compliance with reinstatement, examination, continuing-education, notice, and cost requirements.
Topics
Practice areas
Questions Presented
- What discipline should be imposed for Griffith's sexual harassment of a supervised law student and attempts to pressure her to recant complaints?
- Whether reinstatement should be by affidavit after a 90-day suspension or should instead require a petition for reinstatement and additional conditions.
Holdings
- A 90-day suspension was warranted for Griffith's sexual harassment of a law student whom he supervised and his attempts to pressure her to recant complaints.
- Griffith was indefinitely suspended, with no right to petition for reinstatement for a minimum of 90 days; reinstatement required a petition under Rule 18(a)-(d), successful completion of the professional-responsibility portion of the state bar examination, and satisfaction of continuing legal education requirements.
Key quotations
“Nevertheless, the purpose of discipline for professional misconduct is not to punish the attorney but to protect the public and the judicial system and to deter future professional misconduct.” (838 N.W.2d at 792)
“A suspension coupled with the requirement to petition for reinstatement will adequately protect the public and the judicial system and deter future professional misconduct by respondent and others.” (838 N.W.2d at 793)
Factual background
Griffith made unwelcome comments about the appearance of a law student whom he taught and supervised in an independent clinic, engaged in unwelcome sexual physical contact with her, and attempted to persuade her to recant complaints made to authorities. The referee found that Griffith took advantage of his position of authority over the student and concluded that his conduct violated Minnesota Rules of Professional Conduct 8.4(b), (d), and (g).
Procedural history
The Director filed a petition alleging professional misconduct by Clark Calvin Griffith II arising from his conduct toward a law student whom he taught and supervised. A referee found violations of Minnesota Rules of Professional Conduct 8.4(b), (d), and (g), recommended a 90-day suspension with reinstatement by affidavit, and identified Griffith's position of authority as an aggravating factor. The parties stipulated to the referee's findings and conclusions, waived briefing and oral argument, and recommended the referee's discipline. After issuing an order to show cause concerning more severe discipline, the Supreme Court ordered an indefinite suspension with no right to petition for reinstatement for at least 90 days and imposed additional reinstatement conditions.