{"id":4847,"date":"2004-05-24T00:27:01","date_gmt":"2004-05-24T04:27:01","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/blogs.law.harvard.edu\/formerlyknownas\/2004\/05\/24\/clients-treated-like-adults-i"},"modified":"2011-08-05T14:58:44","modified_gmt":"2011-08-05T18:58:44","slug":"clients-treated-like-adults-in-florida-lawyers-too","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/archive.blogs.harvard.edu\/ethicalesq\/2004\/05\/24\/clients-treated-like-adults-in-florida-lawyers-too\/","title":{"rendered":"Clients Treated Like Adults in Florida! (Lawyers, too)"},"content":{"rendered":"

<\/a><\/p>\n

Although facing raging nannyism (over sex with clients) and enraged ninnyism (over advertising by lawyers), the Florida Supreme Court has issued revised rules of professional conduct for lawyers that demonstrate a belief that clients who have reached their majority are indeed adults.  The rules suggest that lawyers might be responsible adults, too.  (See <\/FONT>Amendment to the Rules Regulating The Florida Bar<\/FONT><\/A>, 5\/20\/2004.  As usual, <\/FONT>Tim Chinaris<\/FONT><\/A> has done an excellent job at <\/FONT>sunEthics<\/FONT><\/A>, summarizing the rule changes and linking to relevant materials).<\/FONT><\/DIV>
\n
<\/FONT> <\/DIV>
\n
\"embrace  As for the nannyism<\/STRONG>, see the concurring opinion of Justice Pariente<\/STRONG> [apt name] in Florida Bar v. Bryant<\/A><\/EM>, 813 So.2d 38 (Fla. 2002), where the judge recommends the total prohibition of sexual relationships between a lawyer and client during the lawyer-client relationship (leaving no loophole for prior relationships — nor even mentioning spouses.)   Justice Pariente favorably quotes a law review article stating:<\/FONT><\/DIV>
\n

\n
Even an arguably “consensual” relationship could end up with a client alleging she was coerced or manipulated into the relationship. An express rule would protect the client from the attorney and the attorney from the client, thereby preserving the integrity of the legal profession. <\/EM><\/FONT><\/DIV><\/BLOCKQUOTE>
\n
Note<\/STRONG><\/EM>: the <\/FONT><\/FONT>Bryant<\/FONT><\/EM><\/A> opinion should be R-rated<\/STRONG>, but please finish reading this posting before checking it out.  Sneak preview<\/EM>: Lawyer Bryant told his client, “the happier you keep me, the harder I will work.”)   ethicalEsq<\/EM> fully explained his disagreement with absolute prohibitions <\/FONT>here<\/FONT><\/A>, and the current Editor, not surprisingly, concurs.   <\/FONT><\/FONT><\/DIV>
\n
<\/FONT> <\/DIV>
\n
The prior rule in Florida banned sexual relations that “exploit” a client.  <\/FONT>sunEthics<\/FONT><\/A> (05\/20\/04) has a good summary of the changes:<\/FONT><\/FONT><\/DIV>
\n

\n
The revised rule provides that a lawyer may not “engage in sexual conduct with a client or a representative of a client that exploits or adversely affects the interests of the client or the lawyer-client relationship<\/STRONG>.”  <\/FONT>Rule 4-1.8<\/FONT><\/A>(i).  New language provides examples of offending conduct, including demanding sexual relations as a condition of representation, coercing or intimidating a client into acquiescing to sexual relations, or allowing the sexual relationship to cause the lawyer to render incompetent representation<\/STRONG>.  New language in the Comment provides that a “client” means not only an individual but “a representative of the client<\/STRONG>..  <\/FONT><\/DIV><\/BLOCKQUOTE>
\n
Justice Pariente continues her nanny role with another concurrence<\/A> (at page 26), in which she requests “that this rule be assessed periodically to ensure that it operates to guarantee that the attorney-client relationship is not compromised in any regard as a result of an ongoing sexual relationship.”   Wouldn’t that be a great use of scare bar counsel resources?<\/FONT><\/DIV>
\n
<\/FONT> <\/DIV>
\n

\n
\"masks\"  <\/FONT>On the subject of ninnyism<\/STRONG> over lawyer advertising, see our <\/FONT>recent posting<\/FONT><\/A>, concerning the current legislative push to ban virtually all advertising that “solicits” litigation.  Instead of caving to this legislative pressure to further limit advertising, the Florida Supreme Court chose to remove many restrictions on television and radio advertising, while banning features that are “deceptive, misleading, manipulative, or . . . likely to confuse the viewer,” and insisting that all statements that are required to be included in lawyer ads be “clearly legible if written or intelligible if spoken aloud.” <\/FONT><\/DIV><\/DIV>
\n
<\/FONT> <\/DIV>
\n
Existing paternalistic prohibitions have been eliminated, including:<\/FONT><\/DIV>
\n