The “Couch Of Restitution”
A Michigan divorce lawyer has been stripped of his right to practice law for 180 days after an investigation discovered that he had failed to report prior convictions.
Of course, that’s not the offense that has his story ricocheting around the legal blogosphere (and beyond).
In addition to those charges, this attorney also offered female clients the option of compensating him for his services on a “couch of restitution.”
Quoting the Michigan Attorney Discipline Board ruling, courtesy of the Legal Profession Blog:
The high degree of similarity of these separate accounts established [his] system of making sexual overtures to female clients who were seeking legal assistance in a domestic matter. These overtures occurred during a discussion of his legal fees. Both [victims] testified that [he] used the phrase “couch of restitution,” and closed the blinds before making sexual remarks to them.
God bless America, people. Land that we love …
Anyway, does this mean we have to get rid of our “Settlement Sofa?”
Because we just spent a pretty penny getting that thing reupholstered …
Comments
By Todd on December 1st, 2009 at 9:22 pm
In South Carolina, if this guy has played his cards (politics)right and found his way to get to the right member (CJ) of the Supreme Court, he would have received an appointment to a presigious bar committee, been told what an asset to the BAR this honorable man really is and given preferential treatment on his next 5 appeals before the Court.
By Soft Sigh From Hell on December 1st, 2009 at 10:27 pm
Now don’t you go besmirching the “Divine Divans of Debt Forgiveness.” This is the state capital you know. Or the “La-Z-Boys of Re-Liquidity” in the Wilson district.
By Just a good ole boy on December 2nd, 2009 at 9:50 am
And what exactly is wrong with a fair “trade” or barter system? We have used the barter system since before there was currency/checks/credit cards. He had something they wanted/needed and they had something he wanted/needed. His crime is that he had two clients who “paid” their bill through a barter for services and then either were not satisfied with services they recieved “for in kind trade”. It makes one wonder is this a reflection on his legal/court room performance or his performance on the couch? Talk about calling someone a lousy lay!!…