209 A.3d 570
Vt.2019Background
- Glenn Robinson, Vermont attorney since 1999, engaged in sexual relationships and employment relationships with former clients C.M. and P.B. while providing legal services (decisional period: Dec 2010–Apr 2013).
- With C.M.: Robinson represented her in a divorce (2010–2012), entered a sexual relationship during representation, did not obtain a written informed-consent waiver, and offered housing/employment while she was financially vulnerable.
- With P.B.: Robinson provided unpaid legal help, hired her as an office assistant (2012–2013), engaged in repeated sexually explicit and harassing conduct at the office (paperclip incidents; masturbation incident), and had P.B. sign a written agreement waiving "any and all" discrimination/harassment claims.
- Disciplinary panel found violations of V.R.Prof.Cond. Rules 1.7, 4.3, 8.4(d), and 8.4(g), concluded respondent acted knowingly, and recommended a two-year suspension with conditions to resume practice.
- This Court reviewed de novo legal conclusions and sanctions, affirmed violations of Rules 1.7, 4.3, and 8.4(g), reversed the panel on Rule 8.4(d) for procedural reasons, and concluded disbarment (minimum 5 years before reapplication) was the appropriate sanction.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Disciplinary Counsel) | Defendant's Argument (Robinson) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Robinson violated Rule 1.7 by engaging in a sexual relationship with C.M. while representing her and failing to obtain written informed consent | Robinson knowingly conflicted his representation by entering a sexual relationship without the required written informed-consent; sanction: suspension | He believed verbal disclosure to C.M. was sufficient and any failure was negligent, not knowing | Violation affirmed; acted knowingly; presumptive sanction suspension under ABA Standard 4.32 |
| Whether Robinson violated Rule 4.3 by dealing with unrepresented P.B., failing to correct her misunderstanding of his role, and not advising independent counsel before she signed the waiver | He knowingly prepared and presented a waiver to a vulnerable, unrepresented former client to protect himself, causing potential serious injury; sanction: disbarment under ABA Standard 7.1 | He disputes some factual findings and claims lack of intent or that conduct was less culpable | Violation affirmed; knowing intent to obtain benefit for himself; presumptive sanction disbarment under ABA Standard 7.1 |
| Whether panel properly found a violation of Rule 8.4(d) (prejudicial to administration of justice) sua sponte | Panel found the waiver scheme undermined the administration of justice | Robinson contends he lacked notice and opportunity to defend against an uncharged rule | Reversed: panel erred procedurally by adding Rule 8.4(d) after the hearing and denying chance to present evidence |
| Whether Robinson violated Rule 8.4(g) (employment discrimination/harassment) by creating a hostile workplace and conditioning employment on waiver | Conduct (sexual harassment, quid pro quo implications of the waiver) created a hostile work environment and sought to bar claims; sanction: disbarment | He contests factual findings (credibility, voluntariness) and argues lesser sanction appropriate | Violation affirmed; knowing misconduct causing serious harm; presumptive sanction disbarment under ABA Standard 7.1 |
Key Cases Cited
- In re Strouse, 34 A.3d 329 (Vt. 2011) (standard for reviewing panel findings and sanctions guidance)
- In re Fink, 22 A.3d 461 (Vt. 2011) (analysis of mental state distinctions and sanctions under ABA Standards)
- In re Berk, 602 A.2d 946 (Vt. 1991) (role of Professional Responsibility Board and weight of its recommendations)
- In re Harrington, 367 A.2d 161 (Vt. 1976) (Court’s ultimate authority over attorney discipline; Board as advisor)
- In re Korrow Real Estate, 187 A.3d 1125 (Vt. 2018) (discussion of when deference to agency decisions is appropriate)
- In re Berg, 955 P.2d 1240 (Kan. 1998) (aggravating factor where attorney had sexual relationships with vulnerable clients)
- In re Vogel, 482 S.W.3d 520 (Tenn. 2016) (sanctions for sexual relationship with vulnerable client)
- Lawyer Disciplinary Bd. v. White, 811 S.E.2d 893 (W. Va. 2018) (annulment where attorney engaged in sexual relationship with client and aggravating factors present)