A new meaning to disciplining lawyers

This would be funny if it weren't so disturbing. It's another case we learned about in the professional responsibility review yesterday: the case of the spanked secretary. Yes, an attorney allegedly used (I say "alleged" because, really, can that be what's going on here?) corporal punishment to disclipine his secretary for typing mistakes.

Really. Now I wanna know: how can anyone think that's okay? This case adds a layer of grease to the slimy reputation that some lawyers are cultivating for the profession in general.

The attorney spanked his personal secretary and a client or two.

Worse. This all took place in the mid-late 1980s.

Even worse yet. The secretary claimed she thought the spankings helped her to learn not to make mistakes.

Still yet. Instead of skulking off to a corner and trying to hide this horror, the attorney challenged in court the "disciplinary action" brought by the bar. I guess he didn't like being on the receiving end of the discipline. Then he claimed that the notoriety from the case had ruined his reputation already so that further discipline wasn't necessary.

Oh, ick. Ick.

An excerpt from the case:

Goldsborough contends that whether Rule 8.4(d) is constitutional or not, his conduct is simply not proscribed by the Rule. The Comment to Rule 8.4 of the Maryland Rules of Professional Conduct, he notes, provides that “[a]lthough a lawyer is personally answerable to the entire criminal law, a lawyer should be professionally answerable only for offenses that indicate lack of those characteristics relevant to law practice.” (Goldsborough's emphasis). We can only surmise that Goldsborough suggests we should view the nonconsensual kissing of clients and spanking of clients and employees as not “relevant to law practice.” We do not agree. Goldsborough's actions, particularly with respect to his clients [names redacted] are directly relevant to law practice. We need not expound on the centrality of the attorney-client relationship to say that when an attorney compromises the attorney-client relationship as Goldsborough did in this case, such action is indeed “relevant to law practice.”

He was indefinitely disbarred (although with the right of reapplication after two years), and it wasn't a unanimous decision (although from my brief read of the dissent, it seems to be based largely on procedural concerns).

For those interested and with access to a legal database: Attorney Grievance Com'n of Maryland v. Goldsborough,624 A.2d 503 (1993).

Lesson for future lawyers -- as if this weren't obvious enough already: don't spank your clients or administrative assistants.