## Facts

- James Tsoutsouris, an Indiana attorney, represented a client in a family-law matter involving dissolution or child-support modification.
- During the representation in fall 1994, Tsoutsouris and the client dated and engaged in consensual sexual relations for several weeks.
- Tsoutsouris did not explain how the sexual relationship could affect his professional duties or the attorney-client privilege.
- The sexual relationship ended, but Tsoutsouris’s legal representation of the client continued.
- In 1996, the client hired Tsoutsouris again for another legal matter.
- In 1997, while in counseling, the client discussed the prior sexual relationship; the disclosure led to a disciplinary investigation and formal charges.
- A hearing officer found misconduct and recommended discipline; Tsoutsouris petitioned for review challenging the sanction.

## Issues

1. Whether an attorney violates Indiana Rule of Professional Conduct 1.7(b) by engaging in consensual sexual relations with a current client during representation, even without proof the representation was actually impaired.
2. Whether claimed uncertainty in 1994 ethics guidance or the attorney’s asserted lack of awareness mitigated or excused the misconduct or affected sanction.

## Decision

- The Indiana Supreme Court held that Tsoutsouris violated Rule 1.7(b) by having sexual relations with a current client during an ongoing representation.
- The Court rejected the argument that discipline requires proof of actual adverse effect on the client’s representation.
- The Court concluded that the Rule 1.7(b) consent-and-reasonable-belief exception was not applicable to a conflict arising from a lawyer-client sexual relationship that begins during representation.
- The Court suspended Tsoutsouris from the practice of law for 30 days, effective July 23, 2001, with automatic reinstatement at the end of the suspension.

## Legal Principles

- Under Indiana Rule of Professional Conduct 1.7(b), a conflict exists when representation may be materially limited by the lawyer’s own interests; actual harm to the representation need not be shown.
- A lawyer’s sexual involvement with a current client creates a personal-interest conflict because it risks impairing independent professional judgment.
- In conflicts driven by lawyer-client sexual relations that arise during representation, meaningful client consent after consultation is treated as unavailable because the lawyer cannot provide detached advice about the conflict.
- Uncertainty in professional-standards development does not excuse a Rule 1.7(b) violation, though it may be considered when setting the sanction.
- Evidence bearing on whether the representation was in fact compromised may be relevant to sanction severity even when the violation is established by the risk of material limitation.

## Conclusion

The Indiana Supreme Court disciplined an attorney for engaging in a consensual sexual relationship with a current client, holding that the relationship itself created a personal-interest conflict under Rule 1.7(b) based on the risk of materially limiting professional judgment, and imposed a 30-day suspension with automatic reinstatement.


In re Tsoutsouris, 748 N.E.2d 856 (Ind. 2001)