The Dominatrix Lawyer Principle?

"Your witness, Counsellor."

Alisha Smith, 36, by day a lawyer in the state Attorney General’s Office specializing in prosecuting securities fraud, prowls the night as “Alisha Spark,” a dominatrix who performs at S&M events for pay. So reports an expose in the New York Post. At a recent S&M event, Alisha posed for photos with fellow fetishists, wearing a skin-tight, see-through latex dress with heart-shaped pasties.“They pay her to go to the events. She dominates people, restrains them and whips them,” the Post’s source said.

Yesterday, the Attorney General removed Smith from her duties. “The employee has been suspended without pay, effective immediately, pending an internal investigation,” said a spokesman for state Attorney General Eric Schneiderman. The lawyer-dominatrix’s punishment, which will may eventually involve dismissal, will undoubtedly be based on a standing executive order in the Attorney General’s Office that requires employees to “obtain prior approval from the [Employment Conduct Committee] before engaging in any outside pursuit … from which more than $1,000 will be received or is anticipated to be received.”

Whipping enthusiastic S&M lovers pays a lot better than that.

She should be dismissed anyway. Her activities breach no legal ethics rules, but as a representative of the state, the Attorney General and the justice system, “Alisha Spark” was obligated conduct herself in a manner that did not undermine the system’s dignity or call the competence of the Attorney General’s Office into question. Even if she had been whipping leather-clad, squealing men free of charge, she was still duty-bound to keep her kinky escapades secret and private, because once they became public, if they did, they would harm her ability to do her legal job. Would a jury be as likely to accept an argument from a prosecutor who had pictures circulating the internet showing her whipping up fun in her alternate profession while dressed like Cat Woman? Maybe, but no sane Attorney General would want to take that chance.

Kinky though she may be, Smith is apparently good at her day job. If the Attorney General  believes that his office won’t be tangibly impeded by her continued employment in a legal role that doesn’t require a high profile or courtroom duty, then it would make sense to keep her on. Otherwise, it is the Naked Teacher Principle again, under the rare sub-category labeled “Dominatrix Lawyers.”

19 thoughts on “The Dominatrix Lawyer Principle?

  1. “Whipping enthusiastic S&M lovers pays a lot better than that.”

    How do you know?

    (Don’t know how to do italics for the dropquote, and there’s no preview button)

        • NO! I have to be cognizant of the Kinky Ethicist Principle, in which I would be completely within my rights to engage in wild diversions with whips, leather, high heels and consenting adults, to allow evidence of such to hit the web would be irresponsible and would completely undermine my credibility to the detriment of my clients, business and family. Similarly, to lie about same OR reveal my leather-clad hobby would be unethical.

          Hypothetically, of course.

          • Everybody knows a good dominatrix ain’t cheap. Even if we’ve never been to one, been one or even played one on TV. Isn’t that part of the ‘charm’ of being dominated? Paying handsomely for the service? I can’t call it a ‘fact’ since I have nothing to cite, but I give that one to Jack as something we can all agree we KNOW but can’t necessarily prove by first-hand knowledge.

    • He posed for Playboy in college when the Senate wasn’t a glint in his eye…more than 20 years earlier. She is serving as a State’s attorney while working as a dominatrix. Hmmm. What’s the difference? Wow. Tough one. A real head-scratcher. What a mystery. Makes my brain hurt. Seems identical! No apparent material differences at all. But there MUST be something—what could it be????

      If you can’t answer your own question in two seconds, you have some serious cognitive problems, my friend…or, as is more likely, you were taking an intellectually dishonest politically biased cheap shot.

  2. Not exactly. Do you think that a male prosecutor would have been suspended without pay for comparable behavior? Do you think that a male prosecutor working a comparable job would have been considered news worthy? Unless the answers to both of those questions are yes, it’s sexist. Personally, I would answer maybe to the first and no to the second.

    • 1. Absolutely he would have. No question about it, none. 2. Of course! Think Weiner. 3. But the answers ARE yes, and there’s nothing sexist about it.

      But that wasn’t the question you posed. No prosecutor, male or female, would be sacked because of a college photo,

      • I was referring to the double standard about sexuality in general. I doubt that Massachusetts would have elected a female senator who had posed naked for a nationwide publication in college. And, I lived in Boston and Cambridge for over a decade so I have a clue!

        But, a prosecutor is in law enforcement. They aren’t public figures but the public does have some degree of a right to scrutinize their private lives. I personally cringe whenever I see a professional woman attacked based on sexuality, no matter how over the top.

        I doubt that those pictures would have done Weiner in if he hadn’t been married. The issue wasn’t the photos so much as the infidelity issue. Realistically, his last name didn’t help his cause either!

        But, this is over the top enough that you may well be right.

        • I assure you, being married had little to do with Weiner’s problems. It didn’t help. You may be right that a female who posed for Playboy would be judged more harshly, but that’s speculation. You can’t say that Brown’s treatment showed gender bias because of how a hypothetical female might have been treated in an imaginary election.

          But as for the prosecutor—whips and chains and leather are per se over the top, even in New York. I see no indication of sexism at all….yet.

  3. Ironically, you were accusing me of taking a political cheap shot while I was siding with you about Sara Palin on the other post. Did Mr. Fusion put you in a bad mood? I’m not like him. We can disagree respectfully! Admittedly, I flag a lot as sexist and I’m sure that I am wrong sometimes. But, it’s a topic that I’m passionate about and I’m coming from a sincere place. Peace! 😀

  4. I love the hypocrisy of you attacking George in that thread about sex offenders and calling him a bigot concerning sex offenders while you basically state that all kinky sex is “over the top”.

    Unless she earned more money than her contract allows, I see nothing unethical about her sexual proclivities, nor do I feel that she should be placed on trial because someone snooped around in her private life. If anyone has a problem with what she does on her own time, the problem is with them, not her.

    • You don”t know what you’re talking about, you know. 1) There is no hypocrisy. They are different situations. A parallel situation would be if a male sex offender wanted to take a job at an all girl’s school. Another would be a CURRENT sex offender trying to get a job.Professionals have to be trusted, to both be above reproach and to appear to be above reproach. Having a second career in the fetish sex trade obviously calls one’s judgment and values into question…here are other professions where Alisha would be justifiably sacked: law enforcement, the clergy, banking, investing, public service, private tutor, social worker, psychiatry, and teaching. Being paid by sick people to whip them for money isn’t like stamp collecting. What she does on her own time is only private and her own AS LONG AS IT IS NOT IN THE PUBLIC EYE. Once it is, she affects her employer’s image and her own credibility.

      Don’t throw around hypocrisy as an accusation when you don’t have remotely similar situations, the most relevant difference here being “Current” vs “Past.” If you want to disagree, fine, but if you’re going be snotty, you better be 100% right.

  5. So says the ethicist with the blinkers on:

    A. For one, unless you are a licensed psychotherapist you are not qualified to talk about what is or is not a sexual disorder. We know it doesn’t appeal to you. So?
    B. You don’t apparently know the difference between consent and non-consent. Some of those sexual offenders raped people (sex without consent) or had sex with children too young to meaningfully consent. That you support giving a rapist more protections than a consentsual practitioner of kinky sex is not only surprising, it’s disappointing. I may not have agreed with you about the Florida teacher from before, but I could still respect the moral force of your argument. Not so here.

    • 1) My opinion has nothing to do with morality whatsoever, nor did I indicate it did.
      2) The issue is trust. A state’s attorney who moonlights as Bozo the Clown will also raise credibility issues.
      3. I see the situation no diffrently than the asst. AG for Indianna, who fashined himself as a satirist and sent out Twitter tweets joking about how the Wisconsin National Gurad should shoot teh uinion protesters. Protected speech, inappropriate for a governmnt lawyer. So is dressing up in a mask and leather to whip people for money. You don’t think so? Fine—hire her.
      4. The issue with the registered sex offenders is laws limiting where they can work, go, and live. No such issue here, hence the silliness of your analogy. If a states attorney think it reflects well on his office to employ fetishists and S&M performers. swell. I think it makes te justice system look bad, and will cause problems down the road sooner or later.
      5. You’re a guest here, my friend. I object to your tone. You can argue as vigorously as you want, but watch the insults. And yes, if you are rude and illogical enough, I reserve the right to insult you. I am giving you a forum to discuss these matters, which are never cut and dried, though I will take clear positions even when they are toss-ups. Be respectful, or get lost.

  6. Ironically we are in agreement about the sexual offenders thing. I’ve long been opposed to putting most of those that are on the lists on the lists, I’ve long wished the lists would explain, in plain english, what the offender was convicted/plead to, and I’ve long been opposed to messing with housing for them at all. I know it is counterproductive to have genuine rapists, child molesters, and the many others who aren’t so horrible all together , forced to live under bridges and in places where they can’t be monitored.

    As for the rest, the current political system doesn’t get much trust from me. Considering how many of our politicians are corporate whores worrying about whether one lady performs sex acts that some find icky on the side for a little cash doesn’t seem like such a big deal, unless she has specifically violated her employment contract. I am in general never a fan of firing people for “embarrassing” but legal sexual predilections And yes, this lady seems competent so if it was up to me, I’d hire her or make it clear she is not going anywhere..

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.