Prominent Lawyer's Steamy Affair Heats Up Legal Ethics Controversy
Newly publicized details of a prominent Canadian lawyer’s alleged steamy affair with a client are prompting renewed questions about whether an existing legal ethics rule concerning conflicts of interest is specific and stringent enough—as written, and as applied.
George Hunter was sued in November along with his well-known law firm by a former client referred to as “AB.” He was determined early last year by a tribunal of the Law Society of Upper Canada to have engaged in professional misconduct because of his several-year “sexual/romantic” relationship with the woman, who was an “emotionally vulnerable” client in a child custody matter, and his failure to advise her to get independent legal advice. As a result, he was suspended for two months and required to pay $2,500 in costs, reports the Law Times. He also resigned from his post as the law society’s treasurer in apparent response to the situation.
He reportedly sat down with AB at one point during their affair and showed her the law society’s Rule, 2.04 (3), which states that a shall not “act or continue to act in a matter when there is or is likely to be a conflicting interest unless, after disclosure adequate to make an informed decision, the client or prospective client consents.” Then he asked her to sign a statement confirming that he had complied with the rule, according to the legal publication, which says the law society tribunal’s decision supports this account.
The tribunal determined, however, that Hunter had continued the relationship “without adequate disclosure of the circumstances that could make a conflict of interest likely.”
His law firm, Borden Ladner Gervais, was unaware of the affair until late November 2005, and believes AB’s claims against the firm are without merit, managing partner Sean Weir tells the Law Times. “We … are satisfied that the firm will be found to have acted properly and professionally at all times, that the client received competent and proper representation as it relates to the legal matter, and that there will be no liability at the firm.”
Instead of focusing on his client’s child-custody issues, AB’s lawsuit alleges, Hunter turned his office meetings with her into “romantic or sexual interludes” and ignored her instructions about the case. According to her Ontario Superior Court statement of claim, AB now requires medical care and therapy to deal with the stress the affair caused her and has had to take AIDS tests because of Hunter’s alleged disclosure, late in the affair, that he had had unprotected sex with other women during the same time period, contrary to his earlier representations to her that he was not involved with anyone else.
The suit contends that Hunter’s affairs came to an end after one of the other two women—who worked as at his law firm—opened e-mail directed to him while he was on vacation, and told the other staffer, prompting Hunter to confess all three affairs to his wife.
