Legal Ethics
Lawyer’s Nude-Dancing Fee Deal Gets Him Suspended
Posted Sep 19, 2008, 07:46 am CST
By Debra Cassens Weiss
Updated: An Illinois lawyer who cut his legal fees for a stripper if she performed nude dances for him has been suspended for 15 months.
The trouble began for lawyer Scott Robert Erwin of DeKalb when he met an exotic dancer at the Heartbreakers club and realized they had discussed pending legal matters on the phone, the Chicago Tribune reports. Erwin agreed to represent the woman and to lower her fees in exchange for the personal appearances at his office, according to a report by Illinois Attorney Registration and Disciplinary Commission that was cited in the Tribune.
The review board also affirmed a finding that Erwin had touched the stripper inappropriately during the dances, saying it was not against the manifest weight of the evidence. Erwin had denied inappropriate touching, and the Tribune notes that a grand jury refused to indict him on a related charge.
The woman, who is now a married real-estate agent, reportedly complained when Erwin credited her only $534 on a $7,000 legal bill. He had no prior disciplinary action and had been chair of the pro bono committee of the local bar.
Among the ethics charges were that Erwin had committed battery through the touching and his representation of the client might have been materially limited by his own interests.
Hat tip to the Wall Street Journal Law Blog.
Updated at 9:55 a.m. to include details from the review board report.
Related Stories
- Texas S.C. Justice Broke Ethics Law, Fined $29K
Dec 4, 2008, 05:04 pm CST - IP Firm Cuts Rates for Recession-Weary Clients
Dec 4, 2008, 03:06 pm CST - Will Downturn Force Changes in Associate Compensation?
Dec 4, 2008, 08:37 am CST - Justice Who Wrote Ignored Decision Unsure of Oregon ‘Runaround’
Dec 4, 2008, 07:23 am CST
Related Topics
Commenting has expired on this post.
Comments
Posted by Peter - 2 months, 2 weeks, 1 day, 23 hours, 46 minutes ago
I would be curious to know what ethics rule(s) this lawyer is accused of violating. I do not recall anything that says a lawyer can’t accept services instead of cash for his fee, as long as the terms are fair and the services are valued correctly. Is the basis of this lawyer’s suspension that he accepted nude dancing as a form of payment, or that he did not give the client enough credit for her nude dancing?
Posted by charlie - 2 months, 2 weeks, 1 day, 23 hours, 39 minutes ago
I wonder if anything else besides nude dancing went on? I agree that if no crime was committed then there shouldn’t be an issue. Attorneys often trade services for landscaping, house cleaning, painting, contractor type work etc…. who cares if he allowed her to work off some of the payment at her CHOSEN profession?....
Posted by sb - 2 months, 2 weeks, 1 day, 23 hours, 20 minutes ago
It’s the nature of the “services” bartered. The sexual nature of nude dancing places the deal well within the realm of impropriety. Also, a lot of actions are unethical without being illegal.
I do, however, find it humorous that the woman was upset not because of the nature of the deal but because of the amount of credit she received.
Posted by sb - 2 months, 2 weeks, 1 day, 23 hours, 16 minutes ago
Oops, I stand corrected; the original article does have an allegation of “inappropriate touching” and “sexual assault” during their sessions in his office. It still looks like she’s more upset about the money.
Posted by prosecute - 2 months, 2 weeks, 1 day, 20 hours, 51 minutes ago
Although I find their business arrangement to be juvenile and stupid, I have to agree with poster #1. It would be inappropriate for the attorney to ask a housewife or female who is employed in any OTHER capacity to perform nude dancing for legal services, but this is apparently what this woman was doing for a LIVING at the time. I mean, she was a stripper—she got paid to take her clothes off at the strip club. How is this different than, say, bartering maid services from a maid or mechanic services. The woman, however immoral her trade may be, traded the services that she provided legally for the entire public. He can trade cash for a lap dance from her, but he can’t trade his professional services for the same act. I don’t buy it. The bitter irony is that if he has given her a bigger and much more equitable deal, she probably would have felt she got the benefit of the bargain she had hoped for and would have left the matter as a private business transaction.
Posted by dude - 2 months, 1 week, 6 days, 16 hours, 16 minutes ago
#` and #5- you can’t be serious.
Posted by SuspensionBeliefJudgementSOWHAT - 2 months, 1 week, 6 days, 10 hours, 29 minutes ago
Just another idiot put on the cross for little reasons, for smoke and mirrors, while SERIOUS stuff go on in law. Clinton just did sex and a few lies, bad, but others have done real bad stuff, and nothing happens. Same old stupid distraction. Ethics, in a world like this?