Lawyers, Clients and Sex: Breaking the Silence on the Ethical and Liability Issues

This paper examines the existing case law concerning attorney-client sexual relationships and the current ethical rules which may be implicated. Because of the inadequacies in the present system, and the serious harm caused to both women clients and the Bar by these inadequacies, I propose changes in how lawyers regulate themselves and how others are compensated for lawyer\u27s sexual misconduct

Lawyers, Clients and Sex: Breaking the Silence on the Ethical and Liability Issues

This paper examines the existing case law concerning attorney-client sexual relationships and the current ethical rules which may be implicated. Because of the inadequacies in the present system, and the serious harm caused to both women clients and the Bar by these inadequacies, I propose changes in how lawyers regulate themselves and how others are compensated for lawyer\u27s sexual misconduct

Gender Equality, Social Values and Provocation Law in the United States, Canada and Australia

In this article I examine and compare the partial defense of provocation as it applies to domestic homicide in Australia, Canada, and the United States on both the gendered-male basis of jealous rage and gendered-female basis of fear. I explain why substantive equality, prevalent under Canadian constitutional law, has not resulted in woman-friendly provocation rules in Canada and the United States and why Australia is the leader in incorporating substantive equality into its provocation doctrine. I conclude that the main reason why some Australian jurisdictions have abolished provocation and others have female-friendly versions of the doctrine is that, unlike Canada and the United States, some Australian states do not have mandatory minimum sentencing for either murder or manslaughter. I further conclude that social norms have incorporated substantive equality into application of provocation law in all three countries and that therefore there may not be as great a need to reform the law of provocation as there has been in the past

The Tort of Betrayal of Trust

Fiduciary betrayal is a serious harm. When the fiduciary is a doctor or a lawyer, and the entrustor is a patient or client, this harm frequently goes unremedied. Betrayals arise out of disloyalty and conflicts of interest where the lawyer or doctor puts his or her interest above that of his or her client or patient. They cause dignitary harm that is different from the harm flowing from negligent malpractice. Nevertheless, courts, concerned with overdeterrence, have for the most part refused to allow a separate claim for betrayal. In this Article, we suggest that betrayal deserves a remedy and propose a new statutory tort with limits on the available money damages. We begin by explaining the importance of trust and the inadequacy of common law remedies such as malpractice, lack of informed consent, and breach of fiduciary duty. We then set out a statutorily limited monetary proposal and illustrate how this remedy would work. We do this by examining a series of cases in which the courts have struggled to address betrayals and then applying our statutory tort to the facts of those cases. Our proposed statutory tort offers a solution to the current failure to hold professionals accountable for disloyalty that will provide justice to those who are injured by exploitive self-dealing while setting clear parameters that address judicial concerns of runaway juries and overlap with other tort claims

The Tort of Betrayal of Trust

Fiduciary betrayal is a serious harm. When the fiduciary is a doctor or a lawyer, and the entrustor is a patient or client, this harm frequently goes unremedied. Betrayals arise out of disloyalty and conflicts of interest where the lawyer or doctor puts his or her interest above that of his or her client or patient. They cause dignitary harm that is different from the harm flowing from negligent malpractice. Nevertheless, courts, concerned with overdeterrence, have for the most part refused to allow a separate claim for betrayal. In this Article, we suggest that betrayal deserves a remedy and propose a new statutory tort with limits on the available money damages. We begin by explaining the importance of trust and the inadequacy of common law remedies such as malpractice, lack of informed consent, and breach of fiduciary duty. We then set out a statutorily limited monetary proposal and illustrate how this remedy would work. We do this by examining a series of cases in which the courts have struggled to address betrayals and then applying our statutory tort to the facts of those cases. Our proposed statutory tort offers a solution to the current failure to hold professionals accountable for disloyalty that will provide justice to those who are injured by exploitive self-dealing while setting clear parameters that address judicial concerns of runaway juries and overlap with other tort claims