Featured Chrome Extensions:

Casey IRACs are produced by an AI that analyzes the opinion’s content to construct its analysis. While we strive for accuracy, the output may not be flawless. For a complete and precise understanding, please refer to the linked opinions above.

Keywords

arbitrationattorneytestimonymotiondivorce
arbitrationattorneymotionrespondent

Related Cases

Lowery v. Cardwell, 575 F.2d 727
View Case »
Rosner v. Jiro Trading Corp., Not Reported in F.Supp., 1996 WL 312354
View Case »
Spivak v. Sachs, 16 N.Y.2d 163, 211 N.E.2d 329, 263 N.Y.S.2d 953
View Case »
Wyly v. Milberg Weiss Bershad & Schulman, LLP, 12 N.Y.3d 400, 908 N.E.2d 888, 880 N.Y.S.2d 898, 2009 N.Y. Slip Op. 03628
View Case »
Hinton v. Alabama, 571 U.S. 263, 134 S.Ct. 1081, 188 L.Ed.2d 1, 82 USLW 3491, 82 USLW 4091, 14 Cal. Daily Op. Serv. 1863, 2014 Daily Journal D.A.R. 2171, 24 Fla. L. Weekly Fed. S 541
View Case »
Justia Law Link
LexisNexis Link
Westlaw Link
CourtListener Link
Oyez Link

Case of Drucker, 133 N.H. 326, 577 A.2d 1198

Facts

Leonard M. Drucker was the subject of two petitions for suspension filed by the Supreme Court Committee on Professional Conduct. The first petition alleged that Drucker violated several Rules of Professional Conduct by engaging in a sexual relationship with a client, Cheryl M., who was emotionally fragile and under psychiatric care. The second petition concerned his failure to pursue an arbitration matter. The referee found Cheryl M.'s testimony credible, detailing how Drucker initiated a sexual relationship with her during her divorce proceedings, which adversely affected her emotional state and the attorney-client relationship.

The Supreme Court Committee on Professional Conduct (Committee) filed two unrelated petitions to suspend Leonard M. Drucker from the practice of law in New Hampshire. The first petition alleges that the respondent violated three Rules of Professional Conduct: Rule 1.7(b), by representing a client when the representation was materially limited by his own sexual interest in the client; Rule 1.8(b), by using information about the client's fragile emotional state and mental disorder to her disadvantage by engaging in sexual relations with her, leading her to suffer emotional turmoil; and Rule 1.14(a), by failing to maintain a normal attorney-client relationship with the client knowing she was in a fragile emotional state and had a diagnosed mental disability.

Issue

Did Leonard M. Drucker violate the Rules of Professional Conduct by engaging in a sexual relationship with a client and failing to pursue an arbitration matter?

Did Leonard M. Drucker violate the Rules of Professional Conduct by engaging in a sexual relationship with a client and failing to pursue an arbitration matter?

Rule

The court applied the Rules of Professional Conduct, specifically Rules 1.7(b), 1.8(b), and 1.14(a), which address conflicts of interest, using client information to the client's disadvantage, and maintaining a normal attorney-client relationship when a client is impaired.

The court applied the Rules of Professional Conduct, specifically Rules 1.7(b), 1.8(b), and 1.14(a), which address conflicts of interest, using client information to the client's disadvantage, and maintaining a normal attorney-client relationship when a client is impaired.

Analysis

The court found that Drucker violated the Rules of Professional Conduct by engaging in a sexual relationship with Cheryl M. without warning her of the potential effects on her case, thereby materially limiting his representation. The court noted that Drucker took advantage of Cheryl M.'s emotional vulnerability, which was exacerbated by her mental health issues. The referee's findings supported the conclusion that Drucker's actions caused significant emotional distress to Cheryl M. and impaired the attorney-client relationship.

The court found that Drucker violated the Rules of Professional Conduct by engaging in a sexual relationship with Cheryl M. without warning her of the potential effects on her case, thereby materially limiting his representation. The court noted that Drucker took advantage of Cheryl M.'s emotional vulnerability, which was exacerbated by her mental health issues. The referee's findings supported the conclusion that Drucker's actions caused significant emotional distress to Cheryl M. and impaired the attorney-client relationship.

Conclusion

The court concluded that Leonard M. Drucker should be suspended from the practice of law for two years and until further order due to his misconduct.

The court concluded that Leonard M. Drucker should be suspended from the practice of law for two years and until further order due to his misconduct.

Who won?

The Supreme Court Committee on Professional Conduct prevailed in the case, as the court upheld the findings of misconduct against Drucker and imposed a suspension.

The Supreme Court Committee on Professional Conduct prevailed in the case, as the court upheld the findings of misconduct against Drucker and imposed a suspension.

You must be