Sign in to follow this  
Followers 0
FatDog

Lawyer who had affair with client, bills her for time spent having sex.

27 posts in this topic

This guy has some balls.

A Minnesota lawyer is suspended indefinitely after having an affair with a client and then billing her for the time spent having sex, TwinCities.com reported.

Thomas P. Lowe, 58, of Eagan, Minn., who is married, had an affair with a woman he was representing in a divorce case, according to the website.

Lowe reportedly knew the client for many years, and agreed in August 2011 to represent her in her divorce case. The two began an affair one month later.

The website reports that at several times, Lowe billed the woman for legal services rendered while the two were having sex -- calling the time spent together a "meeting" or memo draft.

Lowe will not have a chance for for reinstatement for at least a year and three months, according to the website.

Read more: http://www.foxnews.com/us/2013/01/18/minnesota-lawyer-who-had-affair-with-client-bills-her-for-time-spent-having-sex/?test=latestnews#ixzz2INIC9NtJ

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

i've heard of padding one's hours but this is ridiculous

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
This guy has some balls.

A Minnesota lawyer is suspended indefinitely after having an affair with a client and then billing her for the time spent having sex, TwinCities.com reported.

Thomas P. Lowe, 58, of Eagan, Minn., who is married, had an affair with a woman he was representing in a divorce case, according to the website.

Lowe reportedly knew the client for many years, and agreed in August 2011 to represent her in her divorce case. The two began an affair one month later.

The website reports that at several times, Lowe billed the woman for legal services rendered while the two were having sex -- calling the time spent together a "meeting" or memo draft.

Lowe will not have a chance for for reinstatement for at least a year and three months, according to the website.

Read more: http://www.foxnews.com/us/2013/01/18/minnesota-lawyer-who-had-affair-with-client-bills-her-for-time-spent-having-sex/?test=latestnews#ixzz2INIC9NtJ

He was only charging for his time and anything else that happens is between consenting adults.:D

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Lawyers will screw you every which way, that is for damn sure. Just think, you routinely pay lawyers $200 per hour and get nothing but misery. Other professions charge the same rate, and offer nothing but pleasure.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Lawyers will screw you every which way, that is for damn sure. Just think, you routinely pay lawyers $200 per hour and get nothing but misery. Other professions charge the same rate, and offer nothing but pleasure.

In Colorado this man would have been completely disbarred and potentially charged criminally as well. We take misbehavior seriously in this state. I am sorry for your attitude, but it is so funny when you need a lawyer how your tune would change~ Every lawyer is different, just as every provider is different. Don't paint the profession with such a broad brush. It would be like saying all providers are trash if you had one trash experience with one provider. As opposed to many other professions, many of which don't even "monitor their own", the legal profession is known to be the most strenuous when it comes to taking misbehavior to task and punishing ethical, moral and legal violations. :D:D:D:D

Edited by Flanker
change from first person comment to third person for anonymity
0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
So what is the punishment for lawyers seeing hookers?

You know, ~ you tell me~:D

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
In Colorado this man would have been completely disbarred and potentially charged criminally as well. We take misbehavior seriously in this state. I am sorry for your attitude, but it is so funny when you need a lawyer how your tune would change~ Every lawyer is different, just as every provider is different. Don't paint the profession with such a broad brush. It would be like saying all providers are trash if you had one trash experience with one provider. As opposed to many other professions, many of which don't even "monitor their own", the legal profession is known to be the most strenuous when it comes to taking misbehavior to task and punishing ethical, moral and legal violations. :D:D:D:D

Oh, but I DO have experience with lawyers, dear Flanker. Why do you think I know how many which ways they screw their clients? In my dealings with lawyers, they go back and forth with utter nonsense designed to do nothing but pad their billable hours. It is shameless and shameful. They do things that would make any self respecting ASP blush.

Defend them all you want, but the fact that they police their own profession merely means the foxes are serving as jury on a hen house break-in case.

All that being said, in my protracted misery at the hands of an awful lawyer, I did find a good one. Of course, they are not all bad. Your view is clouded because you are likely one of them. My view is clouded because I am NOT one of them and have had two bad experiences -- really bad. My best friend happens to be a lawyer, and he is unfailingly ethical, if not a bit opportunistic.

And that likely means that the truth lies somewhere in between. Be well, I did not mean to offend, but you should know that there is a grain of truth in every stereotype, and that applies to lawyers.

The less-than-stellar reputation goes all the way back to the 16th century.

"The first thing we do, let's kill all the lawyers." - William Shakespeare

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

In the heels of the higgling lawyers, Bob,

Too many slippery ifs and buts and howevers,

Too much hereinbefore provided whereas,

Too many doors to go in and out of. When the lawyers are through

What is there left, Bob?

Can a mouse nibble at it

And find enough to fasten a tooth in? Why is there always a secret singing

When a lawyer cashes in?

Why does a hearse horse snicker

Hauling a lawyer away? The work of a bricklayer goes to the blue.

The knack of a mason outlasts a moon.

The hands of a plasterer hold a room together.

The land of a farmer wishes him back again.

Singers of songs and dreamers of plays

Build a house no wind blows over.

The lawyers–tell me why a hearse horse snickers

hauling a lawyer’s bones.

--excerpted from Carl Sandburg

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Oh, but I DO have experience with lawyers, dear Flanker. Why do you think I know how many which ways they screw their clients? In my dealings with lawyers, they go back and forth with utter nonsense designed to do nothing but pad their billable hours. It is shameless and shameful. They do things that would make any self respecting ASP blush.

Defend them all you want, but the fact that they police their own profession merely means the foxes are serving as jury on a hen house break-in case.

All that being said, in my protracted misery at the hands of an awful lawyer, I did find a good one. Of course, they are not all bad. Your view is clouded because you are likely one of them. My view is clouded because I am NOT one of them and have had two bad experiences -- really bad. My best friend happens to be a lawyer, and he is unfailingly ethical, if not a bit opportunistic.

And that likely means that the truth lies somewhere in between. Be well, I did not mean to offend, but you should know that there is a grain of truth in every stereotype, and that applies to lawyers.

The less-than-stellar reputation goes all the way back to the 16th century.

"The first thing we do, let's kill all the lawyers." - William Shakespeare

It sounds to me like we are actually closer to being in agreement than disagreeing. I am not intending to defend lawyers, but just point out a few things as food for thought. The most important thing is what you said "stereotype". That is what this string is really trying to deal with, so there is not going to be any consensus anyway.

As for foxes protecting their own, it is actually quite unlike that, as the regulatory body comes from the Supreme Court committee and not "peers" of the profession as you assume. Further, the discipline is meeted out by a Supreme Court Disciplinary judge, a "civilian" who is NOT a lawyer and a "senior lawyer" three person panel who have to agree on the issues and punishment. No other profession is like that, ~ having a member of the public on the panel.

Anyhow, as you said, "stereotype" and of course one cannot paint everyone with the same brush. But again, not knowing everything in this topic was also a reason why I had asked the person I responded to, to tell me what he/she thought was the case.

Thanks for the exchange. Very interesting. ;)

BTW, latest on lawyers: You know why they all wear ties?? To keep their foreskin from covering up their faces ~ :P:D;)

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Lawyers, consultants, etc. work according to the concept of "billable hours". Kill it and bill it, so to speak.

It's not his problem if his client decides she'd rather spread her legs than attend to her legal matters.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

In addition, I'd like to see an argument made as to why it's "unethical" for a lawyer to sleep with his client. DA sleeping with the judge, or the defense attorney, that probably qualifies as a conflict of interest. But nobody expects a lawyer to "objectively" represent his client.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
In addition, I'd like to see an argument made as to why it's "unethical" for a lawyer to sleep with his client.

Maybe because he agreed to the following, when he became a lawyer in Minnesota.

Rule 1.8(j), Minnesota Rules of Professional Conduct (MRPC), states that a lawyer shall not have sexual relations with a client, unless a consensual sexual relationship existed between them when the client-lawyer relationship commenced.

Duh.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Maybe because he agreed to the following, when he became a lawyer in Minnesota.

Rule 1.8(j), Minnesota Rules of Professional Conduct (MRPC), states that a lawyer shall not have sexual relations with a client, unless a consensual sexual relationship existed between them when the client-lawyer relationship commenced.

Duh.

I said I wanted an argument as to why it's unethical, instead you quote some regulation.

So, I'm banging this chick. Then I decide to become her lawyer. According to this gem of a rule, that would be ok, right?:cool:

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I said I wanted an argument as to why it's unethical, instead you quote some regulation.

So, I'm banging this chick. Then I decide to become her lawyer. According to this gem of a rule, that would be ok, right?:cool:

He agreed to the regulation when he signed up to practice law in Minnesota. He later decided he would disregard the regulation. That's unethical.

It's similar to calling names on this board. We know it's against the rules, but we do it anyway, right? :cool:

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
It sounds to me like we are actually closer to being in agreement than disagreeing. I am not intending to defend lawyers, but just point out a few things as food for thought. The most important thing is what you said "stereotype". That is what this string is really trying to deal with, so there is not going to be any consensus anyway.

As for foxes protecting their own, it is actually quite unlike that, as the regulatory body comes from the Supreme Court committee and not "peers" of the profession as you assume. Further, the discipline is meeted out by a Supreme Court Disciplinary judge, a "civilian" who is NOT a lawyer and a "senior lawyer" three person panel who have to agree on the issues and punishment. No other profession is like that, ~ having a member of the public on the panel.

Anyhow, as you said, "stereotype" and of course one cannot paint everyone with the same brush. But again, not knowing everything in this topic was also a reason why I had asked the person I responded to, to tell me what he/she thought was the case.

Thanks for the exchange. Very interesting. ;)

BTW, latest on lawyers: You know why they all wear ties?? To keep their foreskin from covering up their faces ~ :P:D;)

I hear you, Flanker. I did not know that lawyers policed themselves in that fashion. I stand corrected.

My own uncle was a prominent defense lawyer for many years in California. If I told you the case he successfully defended, you may know his name. Anyway, my uncle is now a superior court judge and was one of few (if not the only) defense attorney to be appointed to that position by a certain governor who famously did not appoint defense attorneys for judgeships. It was quite an honor for him, a high school dropout no less. He got the honor because everyone admired his tough, yet ethical, ways.

My uncle always told me, "If you get into any trouble at all, don't say a word and call me immediately." Fortunately, I never had to make that call, but it was nice knowing that I had a great attorney in my corner if I ever needed it. See there, I'm focusing on the positive. Be well.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
He agreed to the regulation when he signed up to practice law in Minnesota. He later decided he would disregard the regulation. That's unethical.

It's similar to calling names on this board. We know it's against the rules, but we do it anyway, right? :cool:

He violated a rule, that doesn't make his behavior unethical

What, pray tell, is the difference between a) I slept with her, and now I'm her lawyer or B) I'm her lawyer, and then I decided to sleep with her?

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I hear you, Flanker. I did not know that lawyers policed themselves in that fashion. I stand corrected.

My own uncle was a prominent defense lawyer for many years in California. If I told you the case he successfully defended, you may know his name. Anyway, my uncle is now a superior court judge and was one of few (if not the only) defense attorney to be appointed to that position by a certain governor who famously did not appoint defense attorneys for judgeships. It was quite an honor for him, a high school dropout no less. He got the honor because everyone admired his tough, yet ethical, ways.

My uncle always told me, "If you get into any trouble at all, don't say a word and call me immediately." Fortunately, I never had to make that call, but it was nice knowing that I had a great attorney in my corner if I ever needed it. See there, I'm focusing on the positive. Be well.

Thanks for that nice story about your uncle. He must have gotten into the bar back when they allowed "apprenticeships" and not just undergrad degrees. Back then many lawyers like your uncle had to work even harder via working up the ladder to an apprenticeship and oftentimes this work ethic put them in a position for great successes based upon years of proven hard work.

I would like to think I have a strong moral "filter" in my biz and while I am not currently a great succes financially, I was at one time before I had a life changing experience. I am very happy today and have my feet on the ground living one day at a time, and NOT worshipping the dollar, or people, but something much bigger.

thanks again for your note. ~ :)

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
He violated a rule, that doesn't make his behavior unethical

What, pray tell, is the difference between a) I slept with her, and now I'm her lawyer or B) I'm her lawyer, and then I decided to sleep with her?

Pfunk is right.

Maybe this will help. The ethical codes "establish" standards of ethics. Ergo, breach a code and if proven, the breach constitutes unethical act, per se. Is why the codes of ethics are approved by each state's Supreme Court, so that there is a guide for behavior of attorneys in and out of their office, on and off the clock.

Pfunk did answer your question: If I have an intimate relationship with a woman I can then later represent her because our relationship pre-dated the representation and there is no implication of my use of my position of authority and trust to unduly influence or intimidate sexual interaction. It is "presumed" that if an attorney is NOT in a relationship but develops one with a woman while representing her, that he used this position of authority and undue influence upon her while she was in a vulnerable state of being subjected to feeling forced to accept unwanted advances.

The only issue I take with this rule, is that in some states it is automatic discipline if such an act occurs even if the client fully supports the relations during representation and supports the attorney. More open minded states at least allow the client to come defend the attorney so that he can prove consent.

;)

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Your first amounts to circular reasoning: it's unethical because the regulations say it's unethical.

Your second point is equally dubious:

"If I have an intimate relationship with a woman I can then later represent her because our relationship pre-dated the representation and there is no implication of my use of my position of authority and trust to unduly influence or intimidate sexual interaction. It is "presumed" that if an attorney is NOT in a relationship but develops one with a woman while representing her, that he used this position of authority and undue influence upon her while she was in a vulnerable state of being subjected to feeling forced to accept unwanted advances.

1) I could argue that the fact that I had/have an ongoing sexual relationship with my client makes it difficult to now represent her to the best of her interests.

2) How does a working relationship between a client and a lawyer automatically imply coercion? I seriously doubt that a run-of-the-mill lawyer is able to leverage his expertise into getting laid.:cool:

I suspect that the majority of these cases develop because two people are working together for long periods of time, over a common cause. That kind of "bonding" can lead to sex. Big fucking deal.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
The only issue I take with this rule, is that in some states it is automatic discipline if such an act occurs even if the client fully supports the relations during representation and supports the attorney. More open minded states at least allow the client to come defend the attorney so that he can prove consent.

This statement nullifies your argument. Obviously, the governing body needs to investigate if there is a problem of consent. If the relationship is based on consent, leave it be. Applies to all kinds of professions.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Your first amounts to circular reasoning: it's unethical because the regulations say it's unethical.

Your second point is equally dubious:

"If I have an intimate relationship with a woman I can then later represent her because our relationship pre-dated the representation and there is no implication of my use of my position of authority and trust to unduly influence or intimidate sexual interaction. It is "presumed" that if an attorney is NOT in a relationship but develops one with a woman while representing her, that he used this position of authority and undue influence upon her while she was in a vulnerable state of being subjected to feeling forced to accept unwanted advances.

1) I could argue that the fact that I had/have an ongoing sexual relationship with my client makes it difficult to now represent her to the best of her interests.

2) How does a working relationship between a client and a lawyer automatically imply coercion? I seriously doubt that a run-of-the-mill lawyer is able to leverage his expertise into getting laid.:cool:

I suspect that the majority of these cases develop because two people are working together for long periods of time, over a common cause. That kind of "bonding" can lead to sex. Big fucking deal.

I am not defending it. Just saying that is how it works, "circular", "dubious" or not. It isn't even MY argument. Just telling you the way it is.

My concern really, is IF a female client came on to me and was hot, and I took the bait, what if it was a "set up" to extort money from me? That keeps my pants on more than whether or not the rules make sense to me. And believe me, in the annual Rules Committee reviews in this state at least, your position, (a more acceptably worded one) is almost every year proposed in order to allow relationships to occur without punishment, if developed properly.

The "run of the mill" lawyer has this happen many more times than you might imagine. NOT because he's hot, or othewise "bonding" with the female client, but most often, because she is looking for a trade-out, or a "freebie" representation, or to extort the lawyer, or some other reason. I usually don't meet a female client with my door closed. If possible, I even have a staff member in with me to "take notes".

And this isn't just an issue with male lawyers representing female clients. It happens the other way around, and same-sexes, too!

Rules are rules. And like this one or not, it can really sting.:cool:

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
This statement nullifies your argument. Obviously, the governing body needs to investigate if there is a problem of consent. If the relationship is based on consent, leave it be. Applies to all kinds of professions.

I didn't present an argument. I don't even agree with this rule. I just stated the rule and how it applies. It's not my rule, I just explained how it is applied in this state. Then, I mentioned that other states don't follow such a strict application and that I agreed with that approach. The strict appilcations states won't investigate consent, and the more open ones will. That's just the way it is. It is not a position I have taken or argued about. It is not me you are trying to disagree with. Don't attack the messenger. Maybe go write letters to Colorado Supreme Court Office of Attorney Regulation? They write and enforce these rules here. :D

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I didn't present an argument. I don't even agree with this rule. I just stated the rule and how it applies. It's not my rule, I just explained how it is applied in this state. Then, I mentioned that other states don't follow such a strict application and that I agreed with that approach. The strict appilcations states won't investigate consent, and the more open ones will. That's just the way it is. It is not a position I have taken or argued about. It is not me you are trying to disagree with. Don't attack the messenger. Maybe go write letters to Colorado Supreme Court Office of Attorney Regulation? They write and enforce these rules here. :D

You may have more success if you attempt to demolish a brick wall with your head.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
You may have more success if you attempt to demolish a brick wall with your head.

LMAO~! Thanks for that, I wholeheartedly agree!! I forgot to whom I was giving the advice, and, giving value to his arguments by taking them on as though meaningful and serious. :P:D

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Please sign in to comment

You will be able to leave a comment after signing in



Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 0