Under PR, which statement about sexual relations with a client is accurate?

Under PR, which statement about sexual relations with a client is accurate?

• A. MR prohibits sexual relations with a client in all circumstances.
• B. MR prohibits sexual relations with a client if necessary to be a witness; CA allows in uncontested matters or IWC.
• C. CA prohibits all sexual relations with a client.
• D. MR permits sexual relations with a client if there is consent.

Answer: (B)

Sexual relations between a lawyer and a client raise serious ethics concerns because such a relationship can exploit vulnerability and compromise the integrity of the representation. The Model Rules take a very strict view, generally prohibiting sexual relations with a current client, with only a narrow exception if the sexual relationship existed before the attorney‑client relationship. California, however, allows more limited situations where the matter is uncontested or falls under a specific, specified exception (IWC). So the statement that reflects these differences—Model Rules prohibit sexual relations with a client when the lawyer would need to be a witness, while California allows them in uncontested matters or under IWC—best aligns with how the two regimes treat the issue. The other options misstate the scope: saying the Model Rules ban in all circumstances ignores the preexisting-relationship exception; saying California prohibits all sexual relations is too broad; and saying the Model Rules permit with consent contradicts the substantive prohibition that consent does not override.

Sexual relations between a lawyer and a client raise serious ethics concerns because such a relationship can exploit vulnerability and compromise the integrity of the representation. The Model Rules take a very strict view, generally prohibiting sexual relations with a current client, with only a narrow exception if the sexual relationship existed before the attorney‑client relationship. California, however, allows more limited situations where the matter is uncontested or falls under a specific, specified exception (IWC). So the statement that reflects these differences—Model Rules prohibit sexual relations with a client when the lawyer would need to be a witness, while California allows them in uncontested matters or under IWC—best aligns with how the two regimes treat the issue. The other options misstate the scope: saying the Model Rules ban in all circumstances ignores the preexisting-relationship exception; saying California prohibits all sexual relations is too broad; and saying the Model Rules permit with consent contradicts the substantive prohibition that consent does not override.