A Lawyer-Client Romantic Relationship forms the basis for a Domestic

Flirting with danger

A female attorney?s? representation of a women in a matrimonial action led to a romantic liaison between the women. After the couple split, the ensuing behavior of the former client led to a domestic violence complaint by the attorney. The trial judge dismissed the complaint following the plaintiff?s case. The NJ appellate division affirmed the trial judges decision.

The story

The parties had a dating relationship beginning in 2008 and ending in June 2009. Thereafter, in the latter part of June 2009, defendant came to plaintiff?s home demanding the return of a credit card that she had left there. Plaintiff asked defendant to leave, and after an initial refusal, she eventually did so.

Plaintiff testified that after this incident, defendant sent her ?nasty? text messages. Plaintiff could not produce the messages because she had purchased a new phone prior to the hearing, and all the relevant texts and voice mails were on the old phone, which she discarded. The only details plaintiff recalled regarding the communications was that they related to her elderly dog, a source of conflict between the parties during the relationship. Plaintiff claims she became so apprehensive regarding these contacts that she went to stay for a few days at a friend?s home and asked defendant not to contact her again. On July 10, 2009, defendant sent plaintiff an apologetic email and continued to forward emails through the month of August.

On September 11, 2009, defendant emailed plaintiff expressing her condolences on the anniversary date of plaintiff?s mother?s death. Plaintiff found this disturbing, as she had not told defendant the date of her mother?s passing. In that same email, defendant referred a client to plaintiff. On September 29, 2009, defendant emailed plaintiff a second time, asking about the referral, sending her regards to plaintiff?s dog, and requesting instructions as to how she could obtain a copy of her divorce judgment.

On October 31, 2009, plaintiff wrote to defendant, directing her to stop ?emailing, calling, coming to my home.? Sometime around February 2, 2010, defendant communicated with plaintiff, this time on Facebook, regarding plaintiff?s October letter. Defendant also congratulated plaintiff on her engagement and asked if she should forward warranties for an item in plaintiff?s possession to plaintiff?s office

On July 22, 2010, defendant asked plaintiff?s fianc?e to become her Facebook friend. Plaintiff had blocked defendant from access to her Facebook page but on August 23, 2010, defendant?s daughter attempted to ?friend? plaintiff. Sometime in August or September 2010, defendant contacted the mother of a person plaintiff previously dated, seeking to confirm that she was the individual who had previously dated plaintiff

On October 6, 2010, defendant went to plaintiff?s home and knocked on the front door. When no one answered, defendant left a note on plaintiff?s car. In the note, defendant said that she had cancer, a short period of time in which to live, and that in anticipation of her death, she had registered a luxury car in plaintiff?s name. She also mentioned that she still had a ?Borgata card? that plaintiff had given her two years prior and that she would mail it back to her. Plaintiff called police; defendant was gone before they arrived. Thereafter, plaintiff went to her local police station and signed a complaint against defendant for trespass as well as harassment. The following day, she obtained a TRO.

Plaintiff did not allege that defendant ever physically attacked her or damaged her property. Plaintiff did not allege that defendant ever made any explicit threat of harm. Plaintiff did, however, assert that a domestic violence final restraining order (FRO) had previously issued against defendant barring her from contact with another person, and that defendant was charged with two contempt?s of the order. When she attempted to testify in detail about these incidents during the course of the hearing, defense counsel objected. The objection was sustained.

The Court?s decision

It is undisputed that a predicate act alone, as the trial judge noted, is not sufficient to warrant entry of an FRO. Silver, supra, 387 N.J. Super. at 124. It is also undisputed that this was not a situation in which the parties were engaged in acrimonious matrimonial litigation, a custody dispute, or any other type of ongoing activity requiring future contact

Plaintiff asserts that not only was the court?s application of the Act to the facts erroneous, but also that, having found a predicate act, as a matter of law, a directed verdict could not be granted. We do not agree.

Even if a predicate act was proven, plaintiff cannot prevail unless she makes a showing that an FRO is necessary for her protection. See Silver, supra, 387 N.J. Super. at 126-27. Defendant?s attempts at continuing contact with plaintiff, contacts known to be unwanted, did not establish a need to protect. Plaintiff was no doubt inconvenienced by those efforts, but her well-being, fortunately, was not endangered to the extent that entitles her to the Act?s protection.

Plaintiff was not in ?immediate danger,? and would not be at risk of further acts of ?domestic violence.? Id. at 128. As the judge noted, he was not questioning defendant?s intent to keep plaintiff ?off balance after the relationship ended in June of 09.? He ?g[o]t it? that defendant was in ?a subtle way [] saying I haven?t gone away, I still know a lot about you.? But we agree with the judge?s final conclusion that despite this purpose, no domestic violence restraining order was necessary for plaintiff?s protection, and that therefore plaintiff had not established legal entitlement to relief. Even drawing all legitimate inferences in favor of plaintiff, defendant?s conduct just does not rise to the level that is necessary in order for an FRO to issue.

The primacy of the second step in the Silver analysis ? the determination as to whether an order is necessary for the protection of the victim ? was recently reaffirmed. J.D. v. M.D.F., ___ N.J. ___, ___ (2011) (slip. op. at 37). That second step ?serves to ensure that the protective purposes of the Act are served, while limiting the possibility that the Act, or the courts, will become inappropriate weapons in domestic warfare.? Ibid. The judge?s analysis on this score was correct even though the decision was rendered on an application for a directed verdict. Plaintiff?s failure to offer a ?scintilla? of evidence that defendant?s conduct put her safety at risk required dismissal of the cause even though the predicate act was proven. See R. 4:37-2(b); Dolson v. Anastasia, 55 N.J. 2, 5-6 (1969).

Affirmed.?

Commentary

Do you think the parties gender played a role in the court?s decision? I am wondering whether two male appellate division judges minimized the danger posed by a woman against another woman.

There is a very interesting article authored by Suzana Rose, Ph. D from the National Violence against Women Prevention Research Center at the University of Missouri at St. Louis entitled, ?Lesbian Partner Violence Fact Sheet?

How common is lesbian partner violence?
About 17-45% of lesbians report having been the victim of a least one-act of physical violence perpetrated by a lesbian partner (1,5,6,13). Types of physical abuse named by more than 10% of participants in one study included:

• Disrupting other?s eating or sleeping habits
• Pushing or shoving, driving recklessly to punish, and slapping, kicking, hitting, or biting (11).
• Sexual abuse by a woman partner has been reported by up to 50% of lesbians (12).
• Psychological abuse has been reported as occurring at least one time by 24% to 90% of lesbians (1,5,6,11,14).?

Did the fact the romantic relationship was between an attorney and her matrimonial client help shape the court?s decision?

Here are the first two paragraphs of the N.J. Law Journal report of this decision:

An appellate ruling on Thursday serves as a lesson to attorneys that getting romantically involved with a client ? never a good idea to begin with ? can be particularly perilous in a matrimonial case, where parties are often distraught and unstable.

In S.M.K. v. C.R., A-2063-10, the lawyer ended up being virtually stalked ? in the form of e-mails, Facebook messages, handwritten notes and unannounced visits ? yet could not convince any court that she deserved the protection of a restraining order.?

In my humble opinion, the facts of domestic violence alleged by the plaintiff aren?t compelling; and do not rise to the level of domestic violence, as defined by the statute and case-law.

The appeals court made an excellent decision totally supports by the facts presented by the parties.

What do you think? Did the gender of the judges, or the fact plaintiff was a lawyer (and the relationship grew out of her representation of defendant in a matrimonial case) play a role in the judge?s decision?

Read more?

S.M.K v. C.R.

Corrente v. Corrente, 287 N.J. Super. 243 (App.Div. 1995)

More than 40% of Domestic Violence Victims are Male, Report says

?

Source: http://shapiroberezins.com/a-lawyer-client-romantic-relationship-forms-the-basis-for-a-domestic-violence-complaint/

don t ask don t tell don t ask don t tell dancing with the stars season 13 sam bradford nancy grace st louis rams charlie sheen roast