PROFESSIONAL tETHICAL tOF tREVIEW tOF tTHE tMOVIE t“ tBODY tOF

tEVIDENCE t(1993)”

Saha tA tV t
BA0150038

INTRODUCTION:

tProfessional tethics tencompasses tan tethical tcode tgoverning tthe tconduct tof tpersons
tengaged tin tthe tpractice tof tlaw tas twell tas tpersons tengaged tin tthe tlegal tsector. tAll
tmembers tof tthe tlegal tprofession thave ta tparamount tduty tto tthe tcourt tand ttowards tthe
tadministration tof tjustice. tThis tduty tprevails tover tall tother tduties, tespecially tin tthe
tcircumstances twhere tthere tmay tbe ta tconflict tof tduties. tIt tis timportant tthat tlegal
tpractitioners tconduct tthemselves twith tintegrity, tprovide tproper tassistance tto tthe tcourt,
tand tpromote tpublic tconfidence tin tthe tlegal tsystem. tIn tcarrying tout ttheir tduties, tthey
tare trequired tand texpected tto tdeal twith tother tmembers tof tthe tlegal tprofession twith
tcourtesy tand tintegrity. tAdvocates, tapart tfrom tbeing tprofessionals, tare talso tofficers tof
tthe tcourt tand tplay ta tvital trole tin tthe tadministration tof tjustice. tAccordingly, tthe tset tof
trules tthat tgovern ttheir tprofessional tconduct tarise tout tof tthe tduties tthat tthey towe tto tthe
tcourt, tthe tclient, ttheir topponents tand tother tadvocates. tThis tcode tof tethics tvaries tfrom
tcountry tto tcountry, tEach tnation tor tstate thas tits town tcode tconducts tenacted tfor tits town
tlawyers. t

Lawyers tand ttheir tcourses tof taction, tboth tethically tand tmorally, thave tbeen tunder tassault
tfrom tas tfar tback tas tthe t1920s. tThe tethical tconduct tof tlawyers thas tbeen tdiscussed tin ta
tplethora tof tarticles, tbooks, tand ttelevision tshows, tmovies, tand teven tsongs, tand tis
tgenerally tviewed twith tdiscontent, tby tboth tlawyers tand tthe tpublic. tAdditionally, tthis
tarticle twill tdiscuss tthe tapplicable tRules tof tProfessional tConduct tas tstated tby tthe
tAmerican tBar tAssociation tand tthe tOregon tBar tAssociation, tEthics tOpinions tin twhich
treal tattorneys thave tacted tin tthe tsame tmanner tas tthe tmovie tlawyers, tand tthe tsanctions
timposed tupon tthem tfor tthis tbehaviour.

Page t| t1 t
tIn tthis treview tpaper tthe tauthor treviews tthe tethical tissues tin tthe tmovie t“Body tof
tEvidence t(1993)” tdirected tby tUli tEdel. tThe tmain tcast tof tthe tmovie tis tas tfollows:

 Madonna tas tRebecca tCarlson

 Willem tDafoe tas tFrank tDulaney
 Joe tMantegna tas tRobert tGarrett
 Anne tArcher tas tJoanne tBraslow

PLOT t/ tFACTS tOF tTHE tMOVIE:

An older man, Andrew Marsh, views a homemade pornographic tape. It is later revealed
that Marsh died from complications stemming from erotic asphyxiation. The main suspect is the
woman who has sex with Marsh in the film, Rebecca Carlson, who after being charged with
murder is represented by lawyer Frank Dulaney. As the trial begins, Carlson and Dulaney enter
a sadomasochistic sexual relationship behind the back of Dulaney's unsuspecting wife.
During their first sexual encounter, Dulaney, overcome by lust, notices too late that
Carlson is tying his arms behind his back using his own belt. Carlson pushes him onto the bed,
removes his underwear, and while he is restrained, humiliates him by pouring hot candle wax on
his chest, stomach, and genitals, amused by Dulaney's frustration and increasingly desperate
reactions. The two then have sex, with Carlson in complete control, an obvious counterpoint to
their relationship in the courtroom, where Dulaney is the one in control.
Carlson proclaims her innocence to Dulaney in private and in court, but District Attorney
Robert Garrett seeks to prove that Carlson deliberately killed Marsh in bed to receive the $8
million he left her in his will. The testimony of Marsh's private secretary, Joanne Braslow,
reveals that he had a sexual relationship with Braslow that could have contributed to his death,
casting a reasonable doubt as to Carlson's guilt.
T
Dulaney tmaligns tCarlson twith taccusations tof ther twithholding tinformation tfrom thim,
tthreatening tto tdrop ther tas ta tclient tand tend ttheir taffair. tIn tresponse, tCarlson tcontacts
tDulaney's twife tand tdiscloses tthe taffair. tCarlson tis tshown tin tcourt tto thave thad tprevious
tsexual trelationships twith ta tnumber tof tolder trich tmen, tincluding tJeffery tRoston, tin
twhich ther tlovemaking twas tjust tas trough. tRoston tsays tthat tshe tabruptly tended ttheir

Page t| t2 t
trelationship twhen the tgot theart tsurgery tand tbecame thealthier. tCarlson's ttestimony
tconvinces tthe tjury, twhich tacquits ther.
tCarlson tbluntly ttells tDulaney tthat ther tsexual tprowess tis thow tshe tis table tto tmake tmen
tdo tanything. tAn tenraged tPayley tlashes tout tat tCarlson tphysically tand, tafter tDulaney
tpulls thim toff, tPayley tshoots ther ttwice. tShe tplunges tfrom ta twindow tto ther tdeath.

ETHICAL tISSUES tIN tTHE tMOVIE

Sleeping tWith tThe tEnemy:

"Maintaining tthe tintegrity tand timproving tthe tcompetence tof tthe tbar.., tis tthe
tethical tresponsibility tof tevery tlawyer." 1 tSexual trelations twith tclients thas tbeen ta
tcontroversial tissue tfacing tthe tAmerican tBar tAssociation tand tstate tethics tcommittees tfor
ta tlong ttime. 2 tAccording tto tthe tAmerican tBar tAssociation, t"the troles tof tlover tand
tlawyer tare tpotentially tconflicting tones tas tthe temotional tinvolvement tthat tis tfostered tby
ta tsexual trelationship thas tthe tpotential tto tundercut tthe tobjective tdetachment tthat tis toften
3
tdemanded tfor tadequate trepresentation." tThis thas tprompted tseveral tstate tbar
tassociations, tincluding tFlorida, tOregon, tto tcreate tprovisions tin ttheir trules tto tprohibit
tsexual trelations twith tclients.4 t
RELEVANT tPROVISIONS:
tAs tthis tmovie thappens tin tthe tstate tOregon tthe tAmerican tBar tAssociation tCode tand
tOregon tCode tof tProfessional tResponsibility tgoverns tthe tprofessional tethical trules tof tan
tAdvocate.
tOregon5, tattorney-client tsexual trelations tare tregulated tunder tthe theading tof tconflicts tof
tinterest tand tmediation. tThe tOregon trule tis tidentical tto tthe tMinnesota trule. tOregon tRule

1 tMODEL tCODE tOF tPROFESSIONAL tCONDUCT tEC t1.1 t(1997).

2 tLinda tFitts tMischier, tReconciling tRapture, tRepresentation, tand tResponsibility: tAn tArgument tAgainst tPer tSe
tBans ton tAttorney-Client tSex, t10 tGEO. tJ. tLEGALETIacs t209 t(1996).
3 tABA tComm. ton tEthics tand tProfessional tResponsibility, tFormal tOp. t92-364 t(1992) t(discussing tsexual

trelations twith tclients).

4 tSee, te.g., tRPC t4-8.4(i). tUnfortunately, tthere tis ta tlawyer tjoke tstating tanother treason: t"Why tis tthere tan

tethical trule tprohibiting tlawyers tfrom tsleeping twith ttheir tclients? tSo tthat tthe tclient tis tnot tbilled ttwice tfor
twhat tis tessentially tthe tsame tservice."
5 tFor tOregon tcases ton tattorney-client tsexual trelations tsee, te.g., tIn tre tHassenstab,934 tP.2d t1110 t(Or. t1997)

t(disbarring tattorney tfor ta tseries tof tsexual tcontacts twith tmorethat tfifteen tclients, tfinding tthat this tinterest tin

Page t| t3 t
t5-110 tprovides tthat t"a tlawyer tshall tnot thave tsexual trelations6 twith ta tcurrent tclient tof
tthe tlawyer tunless ta tconsensual tsexual trelationship texisted tbetween tthem tbefore tthe
tlawyer-client trelationship tcommenced."7 tSexual trelations twith tthe tclient's trepresentative
tfalls twithin tthe tOregon trule. tThe trule tstates: t"A tlawyer tshall tnot thave tsexual trelations
twith ta trepresentative tof ta tcurrent tclient tof tthe tlawyer tif tthe tsexual trelations twould, tor
twould tlikely, tdamage tor tprejudice tthe tclient tin tthe trepresentation." 8 tLike tthe tother
tjurisdictions, tOregon tdoes tnot tprohibit tsexual trelations twith tother tfirm tmembers twho
tprovide tno trepresentation tto tthe tclient. 9 tThe tOregon trule tis ta tblanket tprohibition
tagainst tattorney-client tsexual trelations tsimilar tto tthe tcomparable trules tin tMinnesota,
tIowa, tand tNorth tCarolina. tBoth tthe tOregon tand tNorth tCarolina trules, talthough
texempting tspousal tand tpreexisting trelationships, tstate tthat tthe texemption tcould tbe
tsuperseded tby tconflict tor tprejudice tto tthe tclient's tcase.

ETHICAL tPROVISIONS tTHAT tCAN tBE tCOMPARED tIN tTHE tMOVIE:

Interestingly, twhen tsexual trelations tbetween tan tattorney tand tclient tare tportrayed
tin tthe tmovies, tthe tdestruction tof tthe t"objective tdetachment" thas tactually tworked tin tthe
tclient's tfavor. tMoreover, tit tis toften tthe tclient, tand tnot tthe tlawyer, twho thas tinitiated tthe
tsexual trelationship, tand tit tseems tas tthough tthe tclient thas tdone tso tto tfurther this tor ther
town tinterests. tThe tsame tsituation twas talso tportrayed tin tthe tmentioned tmovie. tIt twas
tCarlson twho tseduced tFrank tDelaney t(Defence tLawyer) tfor ther town tinterest tto tget ther
tout tof tthe tcase.
The tSexual trelationship tbetween tAdvocate tand tclient tmay tcreate tseveral tethical tissues:

tthe tsexual trelationships taffected this tprofes-sional tjudgment tin this tclients' tbehalf ti.e., twas ta tconflict tof
tinterest). tFor tan tin-depth thistor-ical tand tanalytical texamination tof tthe tOregon tRule, tand tto ta tcertain textent
tthe tCaliforniaRule, tsee tgenerally tCaroline tForell, tOregon's t"Hands-Off" tRule: tEthical tAnd tLiability tIs-sues
tPresented tBy tAttorney-Client tSexual tContact, t29 tWillamette tL. tRev. t711 t(1993); tCaroline tForell, tHands-Off
tRule tIs tUnique t(noting tOregon's tpioneering trole tin tprohibitingattorney tclient tsexual trelations
6 tFor tpurposes tof tDR t5-110 t"sexual trelations" tmeans: t(1) tSexual tintercourse; tor t(2)Any ttouching tof tthe

tsexual tor tother tintimate tparts tof tthe tlawyer tfor tthe tpurpose tof tarous-ing tor tgratifying tthe tsexual tdesire tof
teither tparty.
7 tOr. tCode tof tProfessional tResponsibility tDR t5-110 t(1992).
8 tId. tDR t5-110(B)
9 tId. tDR t5-110(D).

Page t| t4 t
 1. The tSexual tRelationship tbetween tthe tclient tand tthe tAdvocate tundermines tthe
temotional tdetachment tthat tis tessential tfor tthe tattorney tto tdeliver tcompetent
trepresentation.10
2. A tsexual trelationship tmay tcreate ta tconflict tof tinterest.11
3. It tmay talso tcreate tdanger tregarding tattorney-client tconfidences.12

While ta tsexual trelation twith ta tclient tremains ta tserious tproblem tconcerning tlawyers
tand tclients tin treality13, tin tthis tmovie tit twas tthe tclient twho tseduced tthe tlawyer tand
tmanipulated tthe trelationship tto ther tadvantage. tMoreover, tDelaney tprocured ta tfavorable
toutcome tfor this tclient, tand tCarlson tsuffered tnone tof tthe tmisfortunes tthat tthe tRules
twere tenacted tto tprevent. tThus tall tthe tRules twere tenacted tto tprotect tthe tclient tfrom tthe
tdesires tof tthe tAdvocate tand tnot tthe tVice tversa.

As tfor tthe tconsequences tthis ttype tof tportrayal thas ton tthe tpublic's timage tof tlawyers,
tit tappears tthat tbecause tthe tclient twas ttaking tadvantage tof tthe tlawyer, tnot tthe
tantithetical, tthere tis tno tpessimistic tfiguration tof tan tattorney. tIt tmay tseem tas tthough
tCarlson, tthe tclient, twas twiser tthan tDelaney, tthe tlawyer, tbecause tit twas tshe twho
tmanipulated tthe tentire tcourse tof tevents. tPerhaps tthis twould tcreate ta tnegative timage tof
tthe tmale tattorney tin tthat the tcannot tcontrol this tsexual tdesires tand tallows thimself tto tbe
tseduced tby ta tfemale tclient, tbut ta tmale tattorney's tincapacity tto tcontrol this tdesires
teventuates toften tin tthe treal tlegal tworld, t03 tso tthere tis tno tnew t"damage" tbeing tdone
tto tthe timage tof tthe tmale tlawyer. t

Other tversion:
tWhen tFrank tDelaney tdrops tCarlson tback tto ther tboat thouse tafter tthe tfirst tday tof
ttrial, the ttries tto tgo tintimate twith ther tby tgoing tnear ther. tBut tshe tis tshut tthe tdoor
tleaving thim toutside tthe tdoor. tIn tresponse the tsays t“Fine, tyou tare tjust tone tamong tthe
tclients. tGood tnight”. tThis tdialogue tseems tFrank tis tusing this tposition tas tlawyer tto
tdominate tover ther tby tasking tsexual tfavour twhich tis tagainst tabove tmentioned tcode tof
tethics.

CONCLUSION:
t

10 tSee tMRPC t2.1 t(providing tthat t"a tlawyer tshall texercise tindependent tprofessional tjudgment tand trender
tcandid tadvice")
11 tSee tMRPC t13(b) t(stating tthat ta tlawyer tshall tnot trepresent ta tclient tif this tor ther tability tto trepresent tthe

tclient twould tbe tlimited tby tthe tattorney's town tinterests)

12 tABA tComm. ton tEthics tand tProfessional tResponsibility, tFormal tOp. t92-364 t(1992).
13 tThis tis tespecially ttrue tin tdomestic trelations tlaw. tSee tid. tat tn.2; tsee talso tLawrence tDubin, tSex tand tthe

tDivorce tLawyer: tIs tthe tClient toff tLimits?, t1 tGEO. tJ. tLEGAL tETMCs t585 t(1987) t(proposing tan texpress
tprohibition ton tsexual trelations tbetween tdivorce tlawyers tand ttheir tclients).

Page t| t5 t
 Attorneys toccupy ta tposition tof tgreat ttrust twith ttheir tclients. tTherefore, tsexual
trelationships tbetween tthe ttwo tfactions tare tgenerally tdiscouraged. tAdditionally, tthis ttype
tof trelationship tis tprohibited tby tprofessional trules tof tconduct. tThe tprohibition tagainst
tlawyers thaving ta tsexual trelationship twith ttheir tclients tis tlargely tdue tto tnot twanting tthe
tclient tto tfeel tcoerced twhen tmaking tdetermination tin this tor ther tcase. tThe treasoning tis
tthat tclients twho tengage tin tsexual trelationships twith ttheir tattorneys twill tdevelop tmore
ttrust tin ttheir tattorneys tas tpart tof tbeing tin ta tromantic trelationship twith tthem. tTherefore,
tthe tdecisions tthat tthey tmake tin ttheir tcase tmay tbe tmore tinfluenced tby tlawyers twith
twhom tthey tare tbeing tphysical.

Additionally, tcommittees tthat testablish tthe trules tare tconcerned tabout tlawyers
ttaking tadvantage tof ttheir tclients tand tgaining teven tmore tleverage tover tthem tby tbeing
tinvolved tin trelationships tof tthis tnature. tAdditionally, tbeing tinvolved tin ta tsexual tmanner
tmay talter tthe texpectations tregarding tthe tlawyer’s tfees tonce tthe tprofessional tline tis
tcrossed. tLawyers talso towe ttheir tclients ta tfiduciary tduty. tIf ta tlawyer tis tinvolved
tsexually twith tthe tclient, the tor tshe tmay tplace tpersonal tinterest tabove tthe tclient’s
tpersonal tinterest.
But tthis ttype tof trule tor tcode tis tnot tmentioned texplicitly tanywhere tin tIndian
tCode tof tconducts. tThis tmay tbe tbecause tof tthe tIndian tculture twhere tSexual trelationship
tis tnot tthat teasy tto thappen tin tIndia. tBut tin ttoday’s tworld tthis tkind tof trule tshould tbe
tadded tto tthe texisting tcode tin tIndia.
t

Page t| t6 t