Legal Ethics re Sex Discrimination and Attorney-Client Sex

One of the two broad topics this seminar focuses on is Model Rule 8.4, which prohibits lawyers and law firms from engaging in invidious sexual discrimination. The other is sexual activity within the attorney-client relationship. Regarding the former, every lawyer ought to want to stay abreast of issues or standards involving sexual discrimination within the profession. Regarding the latter, even though most lawyers would say, "I'd never even consider, much less engage in, sexual activity with a client, so why should I take a seminar titled 'Sexual Ethical Issues'"? The ethically responsible answer would be "Even though you're certain you'd never engage In sexual activity with a client -- and thus have no need to learn about the 'ethics' or lack thereof with respect thereto, your ordinary, behavior, conduct or attitude may be construed by others as manifesting sexual overtures and, as a lawyer, you ought to be interested in knowing whether your profession is responsibly regulating sexual activity on the part of lawyers within their attorney-client relationships.”

The anti-discriminatory, anti-harassment aspect of the seminar focuses on ABA Model Rule 8.4 (or equivalent state-supreme-court rules), which defines "misconduct" as any conduct evincing "harassment or discrimination based on… sex …, sexual orientation, [or] gender identity." Those rules are relatively uniform from state to state, but of course, their interpretation is generally a state-law issue rather than a federal-law issue. The sexual activity aspect of the seminar focuses on ABA Model Rule 1.8(j) (or equivalent state-supreme-court rules) governing sexual conduct by a lawyer with (or towards) a client. The content of this latter category of Rules varies quite a lot from one state to the next, and several states have declined to adopt a rule specifically regulating sexual "activity."

The format of this program combines the lecture method with the Socratic method, fostering extensive interactive participation and critical analysis of a broad range of issues relevant to the seminar's subject matter. This approach goes beyond merely chronological descriptions of specific topics and subtopics. In other words, the content of each workshop (and the order and extent of emphasis upon particular topics and subtopics) will be substantially influenced by the nature and extent of interactive participation regarding specific aspects thereof. Depending on the number of participants in a particular seminar, the format typically results in most, if not all, participants engaging in conversational-style, interactive discussions and analyses of specific topics during the seminar, and also permits interruptions, questions, challenges, and other contributions throughout the seminar. Think of collegially enjoyable and enlightening round-table discussions. It's a form of learning that involves thinking while interactively participating, rather than learning solely by listening (the latter of which is the lecture method).

This program is designed for any attorney interested in ensuring a more equitable environment free from sexual discrimination.

Learning Objectives:

1. Refresh what should be every lawyer's common knowledge of unique aspects of the legal profession in contrast to all other professions, occupations, etc.: It's the effect of the Constitution's (and each state constitution's) vesting of "the judicial power" of the sovereign in its "Supreme Court" and its thereby incorporation of the evolutionary nature of the judiciary's common law inherent judicial power (i.e., sui generis power) to define, prescribe, and enforce educational, moral, ethical and civil standards for the practice of law and the status of lawyers as officers of the courts.
2. Understand that the supreme court of the sovereign (i.e., the U.S. Supreme Court and each state supreme court) creates structural and functional tools for the administration of justice from common law inherent judicial power (sui generis power) in an adversarial system created under common law, -- i.e., rules of evidence, burdens of proof, procedural rules, and regulatory control over the conduct of attorneys. 
3. Engage actively in the regulatory control over the legal profession generally and the conduct of lawyers individually, as the judiciary typically encourages lawyers to participate. Therefore, each attorney must keep abreast of such disciplinary and regulatory activities and, as much as possible, to actively participate (pro bono, of course) in and support such activities.
4. Explore the types of conduct by a lawyer that would constitute (or that might be construed as) harassment or unlawful discrimination regarding sex, gender, or orientation. Generally, there are not wide variations in the content (or interpretation) of the state-by-state versions of ABA Model Rule 8.4, defining as "misconduct" any conduct evincing "harassment or discrimination based on… sex …, sexual orientation, [or] gender identity."
5. Review types of conduct that would constitute (or that may be construed as) "misconduct" involving sexual activity with or towards a client under ABA Model Rule 1.8(j) or under varying state-by-state versions of such Rule (or in states which have declined to adopt any Rule specifically regulating the subject matter). 
6. Evaluate that any Rule or law governing "sex" and/or "sexual orientation" or "gender" ought to be construed per whatever is the current state of medical knowledge on matters such as "XY" and "XX" chromosomes, does the intrinsically pliable nature of terms such as "orientation" and "gender" thereby somehow render such chromosomal terminology pliable (rather than empirical, scientific descriptions of the biological status of males and females) even though the statistical variations (in XY and XX chromosomes) comprise incredibly tiny percentages of deviations from the norm? So, how should attorneys view deviations from that norm? For example, under the Americans with Disabilities Act, such deviations prohibit different treatment unless it is reasonably warranted in the context of such treatment. For example, the disqualification of a person with a severe peanut allergy from employment requiring proximity to peanuts would not constitute an illegal form of "discrimination." Could the XX or XY status of a lawyer warrant different treatment without such treatment being deemed violative of the Rule 8.4 prohibition against sexual discrimination?

Course Time Schedule:

Eastern Time: 4:00 PM - 6:00 PM
Central Time: 3:00 PM - 5:00 PM
Mountain Time: 2:00 PM - 4:00 PM
Pacific Time: 1:00 PM - 3:00 PM
Alaska Time: 12:00 PM - 2:00 PM
Hawaii-Aleutian Time: 11:00 AM - 1:00 PM

This course is also being presented on the following dates:

Tuesday, January 20, 2026
Tuesday, January 27, 2026
Tuesday, February 3, 2026
Tuesday, February 10, 2026
Tuesday, February 17, 2026