Mr J acted for Ms X, a longstanding family friend, in relationship property and trust litigation arising from Ms X’s divorce between early 2018 until May 2022. During the retainer, their friendship deepened and they provided each other with emotional support. Ms X alleged that Mr J acted improperly towards her throughout the retainer, pursued a romantic relationship with her, and had sexual intercourse with her on two occasions while acting as her lawyer. Mr J denied ever having sexual intercourse with Ms X. He accepted he had romantic feelings for her, but that he did not notice the gradual development of these feelings. Mr J accepted that in March 2022, they kissed but said that Ms X rejected his advances after he disclosed his feelings the next day. In April 2022, Mr J’s wife discovered affectionate text messages sent by Ms X on Mr J’s phone. A short time later, Mr J terminated the retainer and arranged for another practitioner to take over Ms X’s matter.

In determining liability, the Tribunal considered there were significant credibility issues with Ms X's evidence and preferred the evidence of the practitioner that there was no sexual relationship. The Tribunal found however that their relationship developed into an intimate personal relationship during the course of the retainer and it reached a point where it was no longer appropriate for Mr J to continue acting in Ms X’s domestic relations matter. The Tribunal noted that lawyers are prohibited from entering into intimate relationships in such circumstances to protect clients whose emotional equilibrium is troubled by dealing with domestic matters. The Tribunal held “for such clients, intimate engagement risks lack of objective detachment on the lawyer’s part, and greater suggestibility on the client’s part."

In Mr J’s case, the Tribunal found that he did not exploit Ms X, that the development of the relationship was mutual, and that Mr J acted appropriately by terminating the retainer and arranging a transfer to another lawyer once he recognised the situation. The Tribunal noted Mr J may have been unwise to take on Ms X’s matter, but it was not improper for him to do so and he acted as a reasonably conscientious lawyer should in terminating the retainer.  The Tribunal found the deepening of the personal relationship was mutual, that Mr J did not realise his entanglement until March 2022 and that the speed and resolve shown by Mr J in providing good legal care for Ms X in arranging handover of her matter was satisfactory. The Tribunal determined the charge was not made out and that no disciplinary response was warranted. Accordingly, the charge was dismissed.