TRT, Inc. CLE Blog

A lawyer who gained access to an incarcerated female and had sex with her after he misrepresented to prison officials that he was counsel for the woman had his license to practice law revoked (Lawyer Disciplinary Bd. v. Stanton, W. Va., No. 34257, 6/10/10).  A hearing panel recommended an admonishment.  The disciplinary board concluded that admonishment was too lenient and voted to suspend Stanton's license for one year.  But the WV Supreme Court said it has an obligation to protect vulnerable persons in state custody “from the lustful advances of attorneys.”  Therefore, it concluded that nothing less than disbarment was called for in order to deter future similar misbehavior.  “Accepting any sanction other than disbarment does not send a clear and resounding message to the bar, the public and other interested parties, including jail and prison authorities who must work with attorneys on a daily basis,” the court said.  Attorney G. Patrick Stanton, Jr. traveled to a minimum-security prison where he visited an inmate named Rose Auvil. Stanton had previously represented Auvil in other matters, but he was not her lawyer at the time of this visit. In fact, Stanton was no longer in private practice but rather was employed as the head of the state insurance commissioner's consumer advocacy office.  However, Stanton indicated to corrections officers that he was representing Auvil and that his visit was related to the representation, having contacted the prison prior to his arrival, relaying that he was scheduling an attorney/inmate visit.  Upon arriving, he wrote “attorney” on the visitor log, and presented his bar card.  Subsequently a corrections officer witnessed Auvil performing oral sex on Stanton.  Later Stanton admitted that he and Auvil began a sexual relationship in 1986 that he sometimes paid for these sessions and that he had visited her at other correction facilities.  No criminal charges were filed against Stanton, though a hearing panel found that Stanton violated West Virginia Rules of Professional Conduct 8.4(c) (conduct involving dishonesty, fraud, deceit, or misrepresentation) and 8.4(d) (conduct prejudicial to administration of justice).  Commenting on Stanton’s misconduct, the court said, “[it] fueled a wave of questions by the public, the incarcerated, jail authorities, and fellow members of the legal profession.”  The court further concluded, “His conduct fell so far below what should reasonably be expected of attorneys as to be shocking to this Court.”  There must be mutual trust and understanding between lawyers and prison officials, the court explained, so that attorneys and clients may easily and conveniently confer on matters. “Jail or prison officials should not have to over-analyze the motivations of an attorney who seeks to meet with an incarcerated individual whom he states or implies is his client,” the court stated.