In June 2025, the Louisiana Supreme Court accepted a joint petition for consent discipline from Jan Peter Christiansen, who admitted to engaging in a consensual sexual relationship with a current client. See In re Christiansen, No. 2025-B-00602 (La. June 17, 2025). The Court imposed a 90-day suspension, fully deferred, subject to conditions.
Louisiana has never adopted the ABA’s bright-line ban on sexual relationships with clients, but In re Christiansen shows that the absence of a per se rule is not a defense. A personal relationship that compromises—or even appears to compromise—a lawyer’s independence, judgment, or loyalty still violates the Rules of Professional Conduct.
Mr. Christiansen’s conduct created a personal-interest conflict under Rule 1.7(a)(2) and impaired his ability to provide candid, independent advice as required by Rule 2.1. The Court also found violations of Rule 1.16(a)(1), requiring withdrawal when a lawyer’s personal circumstances impair representation, and Rule 8.4(d), prohibiting conduct prejudicial to the administration of justice.
The decision underscores a recurring theme in Louisiana disciplinary law: ethics rules reach beyond explicit prohibitions to capture conduct that erodes client trust or professional judgment. Even when a relationship is mutual, it can create an unmanageable conflict. In the end, consensual does not mean permissible. Romantic or sexual involvement with a current client remains an ethical conflict—and a disciplinary risk.
