Featured Chrome Extensions:

Casey IRACs are produced by an AI that analyzes the opinion’s content to construct its analysis. While we strive for accuracy, the output may not be flawless. For a complete and precise understanding, please refer to the linked opinions above.

Keywords

attorneydivorce
attorneytrialdivorcechild custodyrespondent

Related Cases

In re Cendant Corp. Litigation, 264 F.3d 201, Fed. Sec. L. Rep. P 91,521, 50 Fed.R.Serv.3d 1058
View Case »
Donovan v. Fitzsimmons, 90 F.R.D. 583, 31 Fed.R.Serv.2d 1537, 2 Employee Benefits Cas. 1393, 8 Fed. R. Evid. Serv. 740
View Case »
F.D.I.C. v. O’Melveny & Myers, 969 F.2d 744, 61 USLW 2033
View Case »
Redd v. Hill, 304 P.3d 861, 737 Utah Adv. Rep. 35, 2013 UT 35
View Case »
Edwards v. General Motors Corp., 153 F.3d 242, 74 Empl. Prac. Dec. P 45,568, 41 Fed.R.Serv.3d 1073
View Case »
Justia Law Link
LexisNexis Link
Westlaw Link
CourtListener Link
Oyez Link

In re Ryland, 985 So.2d 71, 2008-0273 (La. 6/6/08)

Facts

In October 2004, Anita Gremillion hired attorney Darrel D. Ryland to represent her in a divorce case. During the ongoing representation, Ryland and Gremillion developed a mutual attraction, leading to a consensual sexual relationship that began on June 14, 2005. Ryland self-reported his misconduct in April 2006, and Gremillion subsequently filed a complaint against him. The Office of Disciplinary Counsel charged Ryland with violating the Rules of Professional Conduct, specifically regarding conflict of interest and professional misconduct.

In October 2004, Anita Gremillion retained respondent to handle her divorce and ancillary matters. In May 2005, while the representation was ongoing, respondent and Ms. Gremillion began to develop a mutual attraction towards one another. On June 13, 2005, the trial judge signed a judgment of divorce pursuant to Article 102 of the Louisiana Civil Code. The judge also signed a consent judgment as to child custody and support, leaving only the partition of the community property to be determined. The following day, respondent and Ms. Gremillion entered into a consensual sexual relationship. The affair ended several months later, at which time respondent withdrew from representing Ms. Gremillion in the domestic matter.

Issue

Did attorney Darrel D. Ryland violate the Rules of Professional Conduct by engaging in a consensual sexual relationship with a client he was representing in a divorce matter?

Did attorney Darrel D. Ryland violate the Rules of Professional Conduct by engaging in a consensual sexual relationship with a client he was representing in a divorce matter?

Rule

The court applied the Rules of Professional Conduct, specifically Rules 1.7(a)(2) regarding conflict of interest and Rule 8.4(a) concerning professional misconduct.

The court applied the Rules of Professional Conduct, specifically Rules 1.7(a)(2) regarding conflict of interest and Rule 8.4(a) concerning professional misconduct.

Analysis

The court found that Ryland knowingly violated his duties to his client by entering into a sexual relationship with her, which constituted a prohibited conflict of interest. Although there was potential for harm regarding custody and parental fitness, the court noted that there was no evidence of actual harm to Gremillion. The court considered both aggravating and mitigating factors in determining the appropriate sanction.

The court found that Ryland knowingly violated duties owed to his client by entering into a sexual relationship with her, which constitutes a prohibited conflict of interest. While there was potential for great harm to Ms. Gremillion in terms of custody, parental fitness, visitation, and community property, there is no evidence in the record that she suffered any actual harm due to her relationship with respondent.

Conclusion

The Supreme Court upheld the Disciplinary Board's recommendation of a fully deferred ninety-day suspension for Ryland, subject to conditions including additional continuing legal education hours.

The Supreme Court upheld the Disciplinary Board's recommendation of a fully deferred ninety-day suspension for Ryland, subject to conditions including additional continuing legal education hours.

Who won?

The Disciplinary Board prevailed in the case, as the Supreme Court adopted their recommendation for a deferred suspension, emphasizing the lack of actual harm and the need to maintain professional standards.

The Disciplinary Board prevailed in the case, as the Supreme Court adopted their recommendation for a deferred suspension, emphasizing the lack of actual harm and the need to maintain professional standards.

You must be