Suspension of Lawyer . . . Right? or Wrong?

Seems like he took his fee "in kind." Hard to see anyone on this site having a problem with that. If she had been in any other profession other than stripping no questions would have been asked. Since there appears to be no evidence of criminal conduct I see no problem other than the disciplinary board discriminating against strippers and their customers. Certainly would have been no problem if he had gone to the club, paid for his dances in cash, and later taken the cash back as payment for his services. Much adu about nothing in my opinion.

It's just plain unprofessional.

Also, I'd bet my life that he didn't plan on claiming the dances as in-kind trade or barter for tax purposes...

O.

"The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes on incomes, from whatever source derived, without apportionment among the several States, and without regard to any census or enumeration."

Yes, that is a very interesting point about dances being income. Heck, everytime a man gets FS or a BJ from his wife or girlfriend that should be seen as taxable income.

Damn, the government's deficits would be eliminated almost immediately if the IRS was on the ball.

A married couple only has sex 2-3 times a year. Wife wants new bedroom furniture and tells hubby that she would "provide services" for a week if he buys the new furniture.

Girlfriend tells boyfriend that she'll share her bed if the boyfriend undertakes a giant unpleasant task for her.

Client tells lawyer that she'll provide nude dances for payment.

Dancer tells customer she'll do FS for 300 bucks.

I don't see a difference in these cases, none whatsoever.

Finally, if I were to cast an actress in a movie with nude scenes, I would sit her down in front of a running camera and tell her that the nudity in the script won't change and if she balks, she'll be sued for damages. Unless the lawyer originated the payment idea, he should've had a camera running.

"It's just plain unprofessional."

Any particular reasoning or just a gut feeling? If the lawyer was the dancer's regular customer BEFORE she needed legal services, then would that make a difference? If the lawyer was a math instructor's customer BEFORE the instructor needed legal services, then would it be unprofessional for the lawyer to accept further tutoring instead of cash payments?

Finally, is it unprofessional for a lawyer to represent a current girlfriend or wife? How about ex-girlfriends or ex-wives?

Where's CHITOWNLAWYER when we need him? Heck this is his state and almost former city. Maybe he knows the guy??? Anyway, I'd bet there's some code of conduct type thing for lawyers in IL (and other states as well), and this type of "transaction" probably fell outside of acceptable practices. Come'on CTL, finish that dance and get on in here; we need to know the truth on this!!

This case is before the Review Board on exceptions filed by Respondent-Appellant, Scott Robert Erwin. The Hearing Board found that, as charged in the Administrator-Appellee's two-count amended complaint, Erwin represented a client when the representation might be materially limited by his own interests, in violation of Rule 1.7(b) of the Illinois Rules of Professional Conduct (134 Ill. 2d R. 1.7(b)), failed to withdraw when he knew or reasonably should have known that continued employment would result in a violation of the Rules in violation of Rule 1.16(a)(2) (134 Ill. 2d R. 1.16(a)(2)), engaged in overreaching, breached a fiduciary duty, violated Rule 8.4(a)(3) (210 Ill. 2d R. 8.4(a)(3)) by committing a criminal act, specifically battery, that reflects adversely on his honesty, trustworthiness, or fitness as a lawyer, and engaged in conduct involving dishonesty, fraud, deceit, or misrepresentation in violation of Rule 8.4(a)(4) (210 Ill. 2d R. 8.4(a)(4)), conduct that is prejudicial to the administration of justice in violation of Rule 8.4(a)(5) (210 Ill. 2d R. 8.4(a)(5)) and conduct that tends to defeat the administration of justice or bring the courts or legal profession into disrepute in violation of former Supreme Court Rule 771 (134 Ill. 2d R. 771) (renumbered to Supreme Court Rule 770). The Hearing Board recommended that Erwin be suspended for fifteen (15) months.

The charges arose out of Erwin's representation of Amber Quitno. The complaint alleged that, while representing Quitno, Erwin agreed to give Quitno credit on bills for his legal services in exchange for her performance of striptease dances for Erwin. Erwin admitted this conduct. The complaint also alleged that, while representing Quitno, Erwin touched her in a sexual manner without her consent and made false statements to police when questioned about Quitno's allegations. Erwin denied that conduct.

Erwin challenges the Hearing Board's conclusions that he sexually abused Quitno and the resulting findings of misconduct. In particular, he challenges the Hearing Board's findings that he committed a battery. He objects to the Hearing Board's findings of misconduct as to Count II, on the grounds that, since Quitno's testimony was not believable, there was no basis on which to conclude that Erwin had lied to police. Erwin also contends that the Hearing Board's sanction recommendation is excessive. The Administrator seeks to have the Review Board uphold the Hearing Board's findings of misconduct and its sanction recommendation.

At the time of her dealings with Erwin, Quitno was employed as a stripper. She worked at Heartbreakers, a "gentlemen's club," dancing topless or nude.

Erwin and Quitno met in summer 2001, when Erwin was at Heartbreakers as a customer and Quitno performed a dance for him. Thereafter, Quitno retained Erwin to represent her in connection with several legal matters. Erwin also represented Quitno's husband and mother in various matters. One of the cases in which Erwin represented Quinto was a civil lawsuit against a doctor, alleging that he had sexually abused Quitno. In that case, Erwin and Quitno had a contingent fee arrangement. In the other matters, Erwin worked on an hourly basis.

Quitno was having difficulty paying Erwin's bills and spoke with Erwin about this. They agreed that Quitno would dance for Erwin in exchange for credit against her legal bills. On more than one occasion, Quitno danced for Erwin, in his office and at Heartbreakers. In return, Erwin gave Quitno credit against legal fees due. During these dances, Quitno removed her clothing. Quitno also went to Erwin's office and modeled outfits for him that she had purchased for her work. Erwin admitted this activity and expressed remorse for it.

Quitno testified that, at various times in his office and elsewhere, during the time he was representing her, Erwin touched Quitno's breasts, buttocks, and vagina and penetrated her vagina with his finger. Erwin denied any such touching. The Hearing Board was presented with detailed evidence, fully described in its report, on this issue and on the relative credibility of the witnesses.

While she did not do so at first, ultimately Quitno contacted another attorney. In order to obtain evidence to corroborate her version of the events, Quitno recorded conversations with Erwin.

Quitno also contacted police. In December 2002, Quitno met with DeKalb police detective Robert Redel. Law enforcement officials obtained court approval to eavesdrop on and record conversations between Quitno and Erwin. Tapes and transcripts of these conversations were introduced into evidence. During those conversations, Quitno accused Erwin of touching her inappropriately, on multiple occasions. In portions of the conversations, Erwin did not deny her allegations or tacitly admitted them. There were points at which Erwin denied certain specific allegations by Quitno.

On February 5, 2003, Redel and another detective met with Erwin at his office. In response to police questioning, Erwin repeatedly denied touching Quitno in a sexual way. Erwin also told police that Quitno had never told him that she felt he was touching her improperly. He stated that the conversation with police was the first time that Erwin had heard that Quitno thought he was touching her improperly, except for a single incident that he stated involved an inadvertent contact. Before the Hearing Board, Erwin testified about the specifics of statements made and not made during the recorded conversations and about his state of mind during the conversations with Quitno and the police. He denied having consciously lied to police.

After the conversation with police, Erwin withdrew from the cases in which he was representing Quitno. Otherwise, there was no evidence that Erwin's representation of Quitno was adversely affected by the activities at issue here. Quitno filed a civil lawsuit against Erwin as a result of his conduct. However, she did not pursue the lawsuit, which was dismissed for want of prosecution. Law enforcement officials sought to indict Erwin for criminal sexual assault. Evidence was presented to a grand jury, which did not return an indictment.

Erwin was married and has two teenaged children. Since being licensed to practice law in Illinois in 1980, Erwin has practiced law in DeKalb County. He has no prior discipline. Three attorneys, including a former DeKalb County State's Attorney, provided favorable character testimony, attesting to Erwin's reputation for truthfulness and his commitment to pro bono legal work. The curriculum director for a day care center, on whose board of directors Erwin had served for years, testified that Erwin was a committed volunteer and had a very positive reputation.

Erwin was very active in providing pro bono legal services, encouraging other attorneys to do so, and supporting the local federally funded legal aid agency. Erwin was also involved in additional community service and volunteer work.

As noted above, Erwin challenges the Hearing Board's findings of misconduct, insofar as those findings are based on improper touching of Quitno. Erwin acknowledges that he agreed to give Quitno credit against her legal bill in exchange for her performance of striptease.

So, wait ... are nude lappers illegal in his district? If so, then the problem isn't taking a barter, it's receiving something illegal (whether or not as a fee for service). But if they're OK in that jurisdiction, then it's an issue of the Bar Association having trouble with the difference between things-to-be-disapproved-of based on LEGALITY (a legitimate concern) versus things-to-be-disapproved-of based on ma-and-pa-kettle's-version-of-morality-not-legislated, in which case they got a problem.

Great detail from Dudester. Erwin should have known that any striper would try this shakedown and should not have had a private dance in his office. His denials are meaningless, even if true, because he was stupid enough to do this in his office.

She used him to go after a doctor before this?? Stupid stupid stupid.

Too much misdirected blame on the attorney, imo. He was her customer before becoming her attorney. Because a woman sells you lap dances then you can't represent her? Whether in his office or the stripclub it doesn't seem like makes a bean's worth of difference.

An expensive lesson for the attorney, but then the government's job is to screw people, which he probably is well aware and has profited from handsomely in the past.