Flirting with legal precedent

I used to be the editor of a newsletter about recent court decisions. I’m still a subscriber, and every once in awhile I’ll poke through the opinions and see what’s going on.

I just happened across the sorry story of one Atty. Michael Inglimo, a man who is living proof that people can get through law school without learning the first thing about integrity.

Atty. Inglimo was cited for a number of improprieties – among them:

• Repeated possession and use of marijuana (Atty. Inglimo attempted to argue that the mere possession of marijuana did not violate the Supreme Court rule that he had behaved dishonestly, had been untrustworthy, or unfit as a lawyer)
• Providing marijuana to a minor
• Use of cocaine (Inglimo argued that he wasn’t sure if the white powder he was videotaped snorting off a mirror using a straw was cocaine. It “may have been flour or salt.”)
• Mishandling client funds, failing to keep accurate records of those funds, and providing false certifications of his accounting and conduct.

But the most lurid aspect of this steaming bag of dung is the one that was on the verge of establishing legal precedent.

Atty. Inglimo is – well, let’s just let the court’s opinion do the talking:

Counts 1 and 2 relate to Attorney Inglimo's representation of L.K in a criminal case between April 2000 and January 2001. During this representation in October 2000, Attorney Inglimo had sexual relations with L.K.'s girlfriend in L.K.'s presence and with L.K. also engaging in sexual relations with his girlfriend during the sexual encounter…

Count 1 of the OLR's complaint alleged that by having sexual relations with L.K.'s girlfriend in L.K.'s presence and with L.K. participating in the encounter, Attorney Inglimo had violated SCR 20:1.8(k)(2).[1]

Although the referee found that there had been a three-way sexual encounter involving L.K., his girlfriend and Attorney Inglimo, he concluded that there was no violation of SCR 20:1.8(k)(2) because there was no evidence that Attorney Inglimo and his client, L.K., had " sexual relations" as that term is defined in the rule.

Specifically, there was no evidence that Attorney Inglimo and L.K. engaged in sexual intercourse or intentionally touched each other's intimate parts.

Got that? Since sexual relations with clients are verboten, Inglimo’s defense is to parse his bedroom behavior.

Atty. Inglimo was getting busy with his client’s girlfriend while she was getting busy with Inglimo’s client. Inglimo is saying “Sure, I was in a three way with him, but I wasn’t having relations with my client, that would be wrong!"

Incredibly, the referee agreed.

The OLR, clearly not impressed with this, was asking the Supremes to enlarge the definition to include this kind of conduct.

The Justices, no doubt holding their opinion at arm’s length, ruled for Inglimo:

60 Without commenting on the applicability of other Rules of Professional Conduct, we agree with the referee's conclusion that the evidence in the present case did not show that Attorney Inglimo had engaged in " sexual relations" with client L.K in violation of SCR 20:1.8(k)(2).

There was no testimony as to precisely what occurred during Attorney Inglimo's encounter with L.K. and his girlfriend. There was no testimony that Attorney Inglimo ever intentionally touched L.K.'s intimate parts or caused L.K. to touch his intimate parts. Moreover, there was no testimony that Attorney Inglimo engaged in any form of sexual intercourse with L.K.

Thus, because it does not appear that the definitional elements of " sexual relations" have been satisfied, the simple term " with" in the prohibitional phrase in SCR 20:1.8(k)(2) cannot transform this situation into a violation of the rule.

So there you have it. Established law on lawyers having three ways with their clients. Steer clear of your client, and you're okay.

At least in Wisconsin.

Footnote: Inglimo’s losing his license for 18 months. So if you know anyone in northern Wisconsin whose looking for legal representation in 2009, don’t give them this turkey’s number.