"After we're done, darling, let's discuss your sexual harassment suit. I think you have a good case!"
This story probably will strike you as a bit odd.
Prosecutors have charged a 50-year-old lawyer, Robert Michael Hoffman of San Francisco, with rape after complaints from four women who told police he assaulted them when they answered his Craigslist ad for rough sex. The prosecutors say that he assaulted at least three of the four women and engaged in rape, sexual battery, forced oral sex and one count of false imprisonment.
The odd part? Hoffman practices employment law , specializing in sexual harassment cases. Sexual harassment law is explicitly designed to ensure that employees are not exploited, debased or discriminated against because of their gender.Needless to say, rape, sexual battery and forced oral sex would qualify as extreme sexual harassment.
But Hoffman’s penchant for rough sex, or even rape, doesn’t mean that he wouldn’t be a crackerjack employment lawyer and an effective advocate for sexually-harassed victims. Remember that lawyers don’t have to sympathize, empathize, like, respect or agree with their clients; they just have to be able to apply their legal skills with diligence and zeal on behalf of their clients’ objectives. Hoffman’s personal attitudes toward woman and his personal conduct does not mean that he is being hypocritical in representing someone who might be filing a suit against him some day. It’s not a conflict of interest; it isn’t even a breach of integrity.
Hoffman’s problem, if he’s convicted, is that engaging in criminal conduct is inconsistent with being a lawyer, any kind of lawyer. You can’t practice the law and not respect the law. But if his defense that the four women consented to whatever abuse he subjected them to is successful and he is acquitted of the charges, the legal establishment will deem him fully qualified to continue his practice on behalf of women harassed by sexual predators in the workplace.
Whether any clients will still think so is another question entirely.
Ethics Alarms 
Well. I guess he’s established “empathy” of sorts. Unfortunately, it’s not with the victims he’s supposed to represent! With these allegations now out there, he may have no choice but to shift his practice to defending his philosophical peers instead of prosecuting them. Assuming he’s not dis-barred, of course.
If he raped anyone, he’ll be disbarred. If he can prove that it was all consensual, the bar won’t do a thing.
“Consensual” seems to have an awfully broad definition these days!
CASE DISMISSED: The Judge was forced to throw out 2 of the 3 cases because the video and texts proved that the women were “PLAIN LIARS” and they had not been raped at all. They should be in jail for falsely accusing Hoffman of rape. Sickening. Hoffman’s information is now all over the net. These liars are not victims, so someone please post their names and faces. The 3rd case — not rape, but that he supposedly put his face in dog-collar-lady’s crotch — is about to be dumped too.
Majority Of Sex Assault Charges Dropped Against San Francisco Employment Attorney « CBS San Francisco
Wicked Women who cried rape jailed for 20 months:
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2030471/Wicked-women-jailed-accusing-man-rape-showed-police-pictures-consensual-threesome.html
!. He’s still in jail on $450,000 bond.
2. I see no reason why the accusers shouldn’t always be named, if the accused is named.
3. You’re quoting the defense attorney. Hardly an objective observer—in fact, he’s obligated NOT to be.
4. None of this affects the point of my post, which included the possibility that he might be found not guilty.
5. Thanks for the update.
Any and all victims should come forward if they were raped in this manner.