|
Respondent, Attorney Donald C. Dudley of
Milwaukee, Wisconsin, is an attorney
licensed in the State of Wisconsin since
September, 2002.
The State Public Defender appointed
Respondent in November of 2011 to represent
a disadvantaged client in three involuntary
termination of parental rights cases filed
against her by Milwaukee County. In
connection with the representation, the
client revealed confidential and intimate
details of her life and history to
Respondent.
Respondent communicated regularly by email
with his client, in some instances
confirming appointment and court dates and
deadlines. However, in January of 2012,
Respondent began sending more personal
emails to his client. Eventually,
Respondent’s emails became sexualized and
invited sexual contact. For example, on
multiple occasions, Respondent offered to
provide his client a “foot rub” to distract
her. When his client indicated she was
feeling a little under the weather,
Respondent said that he wished he could take
care of “that wonderful body of yours.” In
subsequent emails, Respondent indicated that
he was willing to be his client’s “servant,”
her “little man” and could be “naughty and
inappropriate” with her.
The client showed the emails to her social
worker, and the matter was reported to the
State Public Defender. After being
reported, Respondent withdrew from
representation. According to Respondent, he
only meant to flirt via email with his
client, and had no intention of pursuing a
sexual relationship. However, Respondent
acknowledged the wrongfulness of his
conduct, and has expressed profound regret
for his gross lapse in judgment.
|
|
By sending sexually suggestive email
messages to his client while representing
her in multiple Milwaukee County actions
seeking to involuntarily terminate her
parental rights to her three children,
Respondent engaged in a concurrent conflict
of interest, in violation of SCR 20:1.7(a),
which provides, “(a) Except as provided in
par. (b), a lawyer shall not represent a
client if the representation involves a
concurrent conflict of interest. A
concurrent conflict of interest exists
if: . . . (2) there is a significant risk
that the representation of one or more
clients will be materially limited by . . .
a personal interest of the lawyer.
|
|
By failing to withdraw from the
representation after sending sexually
suggestive email messages to his client,
thereby creating a concurrent conflict of
interest with his client, Respondent
violated SCR 20:1.16(a), which provides, in
relevant part, “Except as stated in par.
(c), a lawyer shall not represent a client,
or when representation has commenced, shall
withdraw from the representation of a client
if: (1) the representation will result in
violation of the Rules of Professional
Conduct or other law . . . .”
|
|
By sending sexually suggestive email
messages to his client, Respondent violated
a Supreme Court decision regulating the
conduct of lawyers, contrary to SCR 20:8.4
(f), which provides, “It is professional
misconduct for a lawyer to : . . . (f)
violate a statute, supreme court rule
supreme court order or supreme court
decision regulating the conduct of
lawyers….” A Supreme Court decision with
potential application is Disciplinary
Proceedings against Gibson, 124 Wis. 2d
466, 369 N.W. 2d 695 (1985), wherein the
Court stated in part:
We reiterate our determination
in Heilprin that the public must not be
subjected to unsolicited sexual conduct by
attorneys in the context of an attorney-
client relationship. Frequently, the client
is in some difficulty, and as a result, is
particularly vulnerable to improper advances
made by the attorney . . . The attorney
stands in a fiduciary relationship with the
client . . . By making unsolicited sexual
advances to a client, an attorney perverts
the very essence of the lawyer-client
relationship. Such egregious conduct most
certainly warrants discipline.
|
|
By sending sexually suggestive email
messages to his client, Respondent harassed
his client on the basis of her sex, in
violation of SCR 20:8.4(i), which
provides, “It is professional misconduct for
a lawyer to: . . . (i) harass a person on
the basis of sex . . . .”
|
|
By sending sexually suggestive email
messages to his client, who was highly
vulnerable, Respondent engaged in offensive
conduct in violation of SCR 20:8.4(g) and
SCR 40.15. Pursuant to SCR 20:8.4(g), “It
is professional misconduct to: . . . violate
the attorney’s oath.” SCR 40.15, the
attorney’s oath, states in pertinent
part, “I will abstain from all offensive
personality.”
Respondent has no prior discipline.
In accordance with SCR 22.09,
Attorney Donald C. Dudley of Milwaukee,
Wisconsin is hereby publicly reprimanded.
Dated this 31st day of January, 2013.
|