ABA Journal

So this case stands for the proposition that appointed counsel can be accused of sexual relations with a client and receive no protection from the state’s highest court. There is also an inference that this appointed counsel could not defend himself when the client made these allegations of the attorney’s sex with her public. He was punished for responding.

I face the exact same risks as a privately retained attorney.

This is a fair result suspending Marzen.

By Peter C. Lomtevas on 2010 03 20, 9:51 am CDT

Even though he should get points for being named after a popular Oktoberfest beer style, he showed bad judgment by hooking up with a client who was a mental patient.  He’s just lucky she didn’t boil his rabbit (yet another possible Peeps scene).

By B. McLeod on 2010 03 20, 1:41 pm CDT

B. McLeod, you are erroneously assuming that her allegations was true as she stated it. Marzen stated that this wack job made a similar allegation against a probation officer in the past. I believe the allegation is groundless but I am pleased to see that appointed counsel gets as screwed as I would be screwed if I faced a similar situation.

By Peter C. Lomtevas on 2010 03 21, 6:02 am CDT

I am assuming that, but not necessarily “erroneously.”  The justices seem to have concluded the relationship existed, so they must have thought the case for that was clear and convincing.

By B. McLeod on 2010 03 21, 9:04 am CDT

I do not trust justices because I doubt in their ability to either determine facts or derive them and their reasonable inferences from the record.

By Peter C. Lomtevas on 2010 03 21, 12:06 pm CDT

A camera would confirm/deny office misconduct.

By #6 Jim-OH 2010-03-22 1605 −0400 ! ? camera ? on 2010 03 22, 3:07 pm CDT