Lawyer Suspended for Not Returning Client Property, Sexual Relationship with Client
A Chester County lawyer agreed to a two-year suspension for a pattern of conduct which included failing to file an appeal, failing to return a client’s personal property, and engaging in a sexual relationship with the client.
Mark David Rassman of West Chester entered into a Joint Petition in Support of Discipline on Consent with the Office of Disciplinary Counsel, agreeing to facts that constituted misconduct in two cases.
In one case, he was retained to represent a client in an appeal of a custody decision, but the client did not pay his fee in full. He entered the appeal but failed to file a brief, resulting in dismissal of the appeal, of which he failed to inform the client. He also never provided the client with a written fee agreement. He explained that he did not think the client intended to pay the fee or pursue the appeal, but to file for modification instead, which the client in fact did.
In the second case, he represented a female client in a criminal case. He again failed to provide the client with a written fee agreement. The client was convicted and sentenced to imprisonment. When she surrendered for incarceration, she turned over to the sheriff’s office a number of items including $1,475 in cash and several wallets and cellphones. She also left her Jeep vehicle in the parking lot at the courthouse. At the client’s request, the Sheriff’s office turned the personal items over to Rassman, and he also took possession of the Jeep. Over the next three months, the client made several requests that Rassman turn the property over to her stepfather, but after the stepfather canceled two appointments to pick up the property, Rassman stopped responding to such requests. The Jeep was eventually declared abandoned and towed away by a salvage company. The client requested the court appoint other counsel, and Rassman was relieved of his responsibility to represent the client. The client filed a disciplinary complaint, and when interviewed by the Office of Disciplinary Counsel, revealed that on two occasions she and Rassman had engaged in sexual relations, without a romantic relationship. The client served three years of imprisonment, and upon her release, Rassman delivered the property (minus the Jeep) to the client’s stepfather. Despite an offer to place the money in an interest-bearing account, he did not do so and provided the client with two checks in the amount of $1,475. There was no issue of Rassman misusing or misappropriating the funds.
Rassman admitted that this conduct violated twelve Rules of Professional Conduct including
Rule 1.8(j) which prohibits a lawyer from engaging in sexual relations with a client unless a consensual relationship existed prior to the representation;
Rule 1.15(b) which requires a lawyer to safeguard entrusted client property;
Rule 1.15(e), delivery of client property;
Rule 1.15(k), placing client funds in a trust account; and
Rule 1.16(d), delivery of client property upon termination of the representation.
The Joint Petition stated that the violation of Rule 1.8(j), arising from the sexual relationship, was the most serious issue. Most of the cases cited in the discussion involved such misconduct and resulted in sanctions ranging from public reprimand to disbarment with most cases centering around a suspension of approximately one year. The parties noted aggravating factors in a prior informal admonition and the other misconduct in the two cases. Mitigating factors included candor, acknowledgement of wrongdoing, acceptance of responsibility and remedial action. The parties also noted that execution of the stipulation would spare the client the ordeal of testifying about her personal matters. Based on these factors, the parties agreed that a two-year suspension was the appropriate measure of discipline.
A three-member panel of the Disciplinary Board approved this disposition, and the Supreme Court imposed the two-year suspension by Order dated September 14, 2026.
ABA Formal Opinion Addresses Representation of Clients with Decision-Making Limitations
The American Bar Association’s Standing Committee on Ethics and Professional Responsibility
has released Formal Opinion No. 525 which
discusses the duties of lawyers representing clients with decision-making limitations
.
Rule 1.14 of the Model Rules of Professional Conduct specifically covers the topic of clients with decision-making limitations. This rule was
recently amended by the ABA’s House of Delegates to modernize the language and provide more specific guidance. These changes replaced the term “client with diminished capacity” with “clients with decision-making limitations.” The amendment identified a process called “supported decision‑making" as an enhancement of a client’s decision-making ability. They recognized that clients with cognitive disabilities, including intellectual and mental health issues, can and should be allowed to make decisions whenever possible. Decision-making limitations are situational in nature and can vary over time.
The definition of “decision-making limitations” in Model Rule 1.14(a) states, “A person has decision-making limitations if the person has substantial difficulty receiving and understanding information, evaluating information, or making or communicating decisions even with appropriate supports or accommodations.” This is not a medical or legal standard, or one that the lawyer can defer to medical professionals, but rather a judgment the lawyer must make based on personal evaluation. A client with no medical diagnosis may still have decision-making limitations.
The Opinion states that factors a lawyer should consider in this evaluation include whether the client has decision-making limitations, is at risk of substantial harm, and can’t adequately act in their own interest. If the answer to any of these questions is yes, the lawyer may need to consider whether the client needs a guardian. A formal determination of guardianship is an extreme measure, though. Less restrictive measures might include consulting with family members, use of durable power of attorney, or the appointment of only a guardian ad litem – if the lawyer-client relationship consists of only a single litigation matter.
The Opinion notes that Model Rule 1.14 states, “A lawyer shall, as far as reasonably possible, maintain an ordinary client-lawyer relationship with a client with decision-making limitations, including when the client’s decision-making limitations impact the client’s ability to provide direction to the lawyer or make reasoned, informed choices.” The existence of decision-making limitations does not excuse the lawyer from professional duties such as the maintenance of confidentiality, although the client’s limitations may require such measures as including others such as family members in the discussions. If the client’s limitations are so severe that guardianship is required, the lawyer may seek a guardian for the client but may not represent another in doing so.
The Opinion ultimately states that the lawyer should employ the many resources available both to evaluate the effect of the client’s decision-making limitations on the relationship and as to what measures can be taken to limit that effect. The lawyer may take reasonably necessary protective action if the client is at risk of substantial physical, financial, or other harm unless action is taken. The action taken should be the least restrictive of the client’s autonomy that will yet adequately protect the client. Finally, the Opinion expresses the view that “withdrawal from representation of a client with decision-making limitations is disfavored, even if ethically permissible under the circumstances.”
Lawyers, Judge Disciplined for Violence-Related Acts
Two lawyers and a judge were disciplined for acts committing or hinting at violence.
A former Ohio attorney was convicted of attempted murder and felonious assault after he tried to carry out the “public execution” of his ex-wife in a Toledo restaurant.
Matthew Exton was leaving a restaurant when he saw his ex-wife and her family dining in an adjoining restaurant. He entered that establishment, ordered a drink, and spat at the table where his ex-wife and her family were seated. He then left and came back with a gun which he pointed at the woman and pulled the trigger. Fortunately, the safety was on, and the gun did not fire. A server tackled Exton, and he was disarmed. On September 4, 2026, a Lucas County jury
found Exton guilty of attempted murder and two counts of felonious assault with firearm specifications attached to each of the three counts. Exton was
placed on Interim Remedial Suspension by the Supreme Court of Ohio less than a month after his arrest. He is also a member of the bar on inactive status in Michigan where he once served as a prosecutor.
A Wisconsin attorney,
Stephanie Rapkin, was suspended for one year by the Supreme Court of Wisconsin based in part on her conviction of misdemeanor disorderly conduct after she
spat on a Black teenager participating in a protest. The Court described this conduct as “repulsive,” “repugnant,” and “an embarrassment to the bar.” For this and other misconduct arising from her handling of an estate, the Court determined that a suspension for one year was appropriate and ordered her to pay $3,164.77 to cover the costs of the disciplinary proceeding.
Even judges are not immune to the allusion to violence. The Florida Supreme Court
publicly reprimanded trial judge J. Layne Smith for statements he made out of frustration at attorneys appearing before him. When the lawyers argued over whether a party had been served, Judge Smith
lost his temper and remarked, “I would like to tell the deputy to pull his gun and shoot all three of you as far as my level of frustration right now. I really don’t want him to do that.” He also insulted the lawyers, calling them the “Keystone Cops” and the “Apple Dumpling Gang.” Judge Smith self-reported the incident, wrote letters of apology, and recused himself from cases in which the lawyers involved appeared. “Although we accept the Commission’s recommendation, we emphasize that Judge Smith’s conduct fell far below the standard of professionalism that Florida judges owe to those who appear before them,” the court said.
Law Firm Reports Employee Fell for Hacker Posing as IT
A law firm reported to law enforcement in two states that they had suffered a significant data breach caused by a hacker who tricked an employee by posing as the firm’s IT help desk.
Seyfarth Shaw
notified the Texas attorney general about the data security incident, saying it involved names and Social Security numbers. The firm said the breach stemmed from a "targeted social engineering attack in which someone impersonating our IT help desk deceived an employee into emailing a limited number of client documents to an unauthorized outside email account." It reported that the incident was isolated to a single employee and that the firm's security controls prevented access to the firm’s network or systems.
Staci Zaretsky of
Above the Law commented, “Unfortunately, sometimes the easiest system to hack is a human being’s trust.”
