Summary
The Supreme Court of Oklahoma disciplined attorney Phillip John Anderson for engaging in a sexual relationship with a client and using his position of trust and power for personal and professional advantage. The court found violations of Oklahoma disciplinary and professional-conduct rules and imposed a one-year suspension from the practice of law, along with proceeding costs.
Topics
Practice areas
Questions Presented
- Whether Anderson's sexual relationship with a client, including using sex to advance his own cause in obtaining representation of the client's case, violated the Oklahoma Rules of Professional Conduct and Rules Governing Disciplinary Proceedings.
- What discipline was appropriate for Anderson's misconduct.
- Whether a criminal conviction was required before professional discipline could be imposed.
Holdings
- Anderson violated Oklahoma Rule of Professional Conduct 8.4(d) and Rule 1.3 of the Rules Governing Disciplinary Proceedings by pursuing a sexual relationship with a vulnerable client, taking advantage of his position of trust and power, and using the relationship to advance his own professional interests.
- A criminal conviction is not a prerequisite to professional discipline under Rule 1.3 of the Rules Governing Disciplinary Proceedings.
- A one-year suspension from the practice of law, together with $1,913.72 in proceeding costs, was appropriate discipline.
Key quotations
“Our review of the record is de novo, in which we conduct a non-deferential, full-scale examination of all relevant facts; the recommendations of the trial panel are neither binding nor persuasive.” (¶ 15)
“Under Rule 1.3, RGDP, it is not required that Respondent be convicted of a crime before discipline is imposed.” (¶ 20)
“This Court accepts the findings in the Trial Panel Report that Respondent violated the ORPC "by taking advantage of his position of trust and the position of power over a client under the circumstances."” (¶ 21)
Factual background
Anderson represented Lee Ann Stroud and admitted having sexual relations with her during the attorney-client relationship. He admitted that he had sex with Stroud in order to secure employment to handle her medical-malpractice case, and the evidence indicated that Stroud was particularly vulnerable because of her medical condition and dependence on legal representation. The court also considered evidence that the conduct was not an isolated incident and that Anderson's claimed remorse was undermined by his repeated attribution of the consequences to Stroud's accusations.
Procedural history
The Bar filed a complaint under Rule 6 of the Rules Governing Disciplinary Proceedings. The trial panel found that Anderson violated the Oklahoma Rules of Professional Conduct by taking advantage of his position of trust and power over a vulnerable client and recommended a two-year-and-one-day suspension plus costs. The Supreme Court exercised its exclusive original disciplinary jurisdiction, conducted a de novo review, agreed that misconduct occurred, and imposed a one-year suspension and $1,913.72 in costs.