What happened to the Tampa lawyer who had sex with a client while handling her divorce
Though Tampa attorney John Carey’s client in a divorce case “expressed her belief” that she wasn’t exploited and that Carey satisfied her as an attorney, their sexual relationship earned the lawyer a 90-day suspension that will begin Jan. 15.
The state Supreme Court approved Carey’s guilty plea admitting professional misconduct two weeks ago, putting him on the Wednesday-released Florida Bar monthly list of attorneys disciplined by the court.
Carey is also on disciplinary probation for two years, has to attend Florida Bar Ethics School and a Professionalism Workshop and be evaluated by Florida Lawyer’s Assistance, which helps attorneys with substance abuse or mental health issues. He has been a Bar member since 1983 and his previous discipline record is clean.
Neither Carey’s guilty plea for consent judgment nor the court’s final order state when the divorce occurred, although the lower tribunal case number indicates the grievance was filed in 2018. The complaint was filed by the husband’s attorney.
A Florida attorney accused of domestic violence before reprimand for 2019 domestic violence
Sex with a defendant among ethical violations by attorneys from Miami to Palm Beach
The attorney, his client/sexual partner, her husband and his attorney
The consent judgment and Carey’s admission of minor misconduct say that while representing a woman in a “vigorously litigated” divorce, Carey and the woman started having sex. This injected more acid in an already sour situation.
“The relationship became a contentious issue during the litigation, which negatively affected the proceedings, including depositions, hearings and court filings,” the consent judgment says.
Carey filed a supplemental petition after the divorce was final. Not only was it dismissed, the court awarded the husband legal fees caused by the petition. Carey was also sanctioned for discovery violations.
Carey’s client told the Florida Bar that he “represented her best interests throughout the matter. She was not exploited. She was satisfied with her representation and felt [Carey] worked hard for her, made decisions based on the laws and facts, and, ultimately, did an excellent job on her behalf.”
Carey admitted, while he didn’t intend for the relationship to be a problem, “the existence of the relationship in and of itself created such adverse affect, despite the best efforts of [Carey] and his client and the positive results obtained.
Carey “also lacked professionalism in his interactions with opposing counsel and now-former husband.”
