Eric Gaynor’s involvement in child pornography creates a significant challenge to Connecticut’s Rules of Professional Responsibility. The commentary to Rule 8.4 states: “Many kinds of illegal conduct reflect adversely on fitness to practice law, such as offenses involving fraud and the offense of willful failure to file an income tax return. However, some kinds of offenses carry no such implication. Traditionally, the distinction was drawn in terms of offenses involving ‘‘moral turpitude.’’ …. Offenses involving violence, dishonesty, breach of trust, or serious interference with the administration of justice are in that category. A pattern of repeated offenses, even ones of minor significance when considered separately, can indicate indifference to legal obligation.” How will the state disciplinary board interpret this rule in this case? To the child advocate, it is clear that the circulation of child pornography is more than moral turpitude. It may be that the board relies on the "repeated offenses" clause because of the number of young boys involved in Gaynor's illegal conduct. A solution to this intricate dance for Connecticut and other states is providing a clear clause in their professional ethics legislation that sex offenders cannot retain a license to practice law. It is a dark stain on an honorable profession that there might ever be a question of sex offenders practicing law, particularly sex offenders that have preyed on children. A nation so allegedly outraged by sex offenses against children still seems to provide fairly light consequences to sexual predators. The legal profession should be a leader in changing that trend.
The problem of what to do with sex offenders if complicated. You may or may not remember that a Nobel prize winner, recently deceased, was an admitted pedophile and spent time in prison for his actions. He also discovered the causative agent in Mad Cow Disease, Jakob Kreutzfelt disease and scrapie. Should he have been banned from his medical practice?
Eric Gaynor’s involvement in child pornography creates a significant challenge to Connecticut’s Rules of Professional Responsibility.
ReplyDeleteThe commentary to Rule 8.4 states:
“Many kinds of illegal conduct reflect adversely on fitness to practice law, such as offenses involving fraud and the offense of willful failure to file an income tax return. However, some kinds of offenses carry no such implication. Traditionally, the distinction was drawn in terms of offenses involving ‘‘moral turpitude.’’ …. Offenses involving violence, dishonesty, breach of trust, or serious interference with the administration of justice are in that category. A pattern of repeated offenses, even ones of minor significance when considered separately, can indicate indifference to legal obligation.”
How will the state disciplinary board interpret this rule in this case? To the child advocate, it is clear that the circulation of child pornography is more than moral turpitude. It may be that the board relies on the "repeated offenses" clause because of the number of young boys involved in Gaynor's illegal conduct.
A solution to this intricate dance for Connecticut and other states is providing a clear clause in their professional ethics legislation that sex offenders cannot retain a license to practice law. It is a dark stain on an honorable profession that there might ever be a question of sex offenders practicing law, particularly sex offenders that have preyed on children.
A nation so allegedly outraged by sex offenses against children still seems to provide fairly light consequences to sexual predators. The legal profession should be a leader in changing that trend.
The problem of what to do with sex offenders if complicated. You may or may not remember that a Nobel prize winner, recently deceased, was an admitted pedophile and spent time in prison for his actions. He also discovered the causative agent in Mad Cow Disease, Jakob Kreutzfelt disease and scrapie. Should he have been banned from his medical practice?
ReplyDelete