Law Humor

Lawyer Charged With Billing During Sex

By Kevin Underhill

As I think I have mentioned before, surprisingly few jurisdictions actually have rules making it unethical for an attorney to have sex with his or her client.  It is never a good idea (okay, almost never), but often is not technically a violation of ethical rules.

Billing a client for work not actually done, however, is unethical, and combining these activities by billing for time spent actually having sex with the client is definitely frowned upon.  There is no question about that.

The Times Online reported last month that a woman in London had sued her barrister for allegedly billing her for time during which she had reason to know he was not giving her legal advice.  Ms. Anal Sheikh, about whose name I have nothing at all to say, except that this report did not come out on April 1, and also that it seems more likely to be the name of a movie about the incident than the name of a plaintiff, sued her barrister on the grounds that he had billed her inappropriately.  She had hired Marc Beaumont under an arrangement that was based on a fixed fee of 120,000 pounds, but also provided for additional hourly billing in the event of "unforeseen and urgent work."  I think she concedes that he did engage in unforeseen and urgent work, but presumably argues that it has to be law-related to qualify for additional payment.

Mr. Beaumont denies the claim and says he never charged Ms. Sheikh for time spent "socialising."  In fact, he sought to minimize the impression that he spent much time socialising at all.  "I am a boring person," he said.  "I spend 95 percent of my life dealing with legal matters."  I assume he means his waking life, unless he also bills in his sleep.

The Times article points out that under the Code of Conduct of the Bar of England and Wales, "a barrister is not specifically prohibited from charging for sex, but he must not do anything which could 'lead to any inference that his independence may be compromised.'"  Specifically, that Code provision says a barrister may not "do anything (for example accept a present) in such circumstances as may lead to" any such inference.  Code of Conduct Rule 307(b).  That sort of provision is in most ethical codes and you could well run afoul of it if you decide to accept or give the kind of "present" alleged in this case.

But if this is going to set a precedent for applying ethical rules to this kind of conduct, there is more that British men may need to be worried about.  Rule 701 requires a barrister to act "diligently and with reasonable competence," and to refuse "any task which (i) he knows or ought to know he is not competent to handle; (ii) he does not have adequate time and opportunity to prepare for or perform; or (iii) he cannot discharge within the time requested or otherwise within a reasonable time . . . ."  That just seems like too much pressure.

Link: Times Online
Link: Ye Code of Conduct for Ye Bar of England & Wales

Full post as published by Lowering the Bar on June 09, 2009 (boomark / email).