What in the bloody hell is going on with these people?!! The more I read, the more I am convinced that there is a cabal of disgusting pedobears trying to scurry for cover now that the lights have been shined on them.

Sleeping with an underage client and knocking them up is at the very least unethical for an attorney.

This case is really, truly making me feel very pitchforky

vinnybang: Sleeping with an underage client and knocking them up is at the very least unethical for an attorney.

She wasn't underage.

The girl gave birth to Amendola's child when she was 17 years old, her mother, Janet Iavasile, said. Amendola would have been about 49 years old at the time. The age of consent in Pennsylvania is 16.


Perfectly legal. It is what it is.

lennavan: vinnybang: Sleeping with an underage client and knocking them up is at the very least unethical for an attorney.

She wasn't underage.

The girl gave birth to Amendola's child when she was 17 years old, her mother, Janet Iavasile, said. Amendola would have been about 49 years old at the time. The age of consent in Pennsylvania is 16.


Perfectly legal. It is what it is.

Are their dual-relationship rules for lawyers in Pennstucky?

Nabb1: lennavan: Perfectly legal. It is what it is.

Shagging clients is generally frowned upon in the legal community, though. And a 49-year-old with a 16-year-old? That's just creepy.

Seriously, there is something seriously f*cked up with your community. It's like wildlife preserve of sexual deviants.

Presumably he was shagging her before she was a client. I agree it's creepy and farked up. But it's legal. My point is just it's pretty stupid to compare legally consenting people having sex to what Sandusky did.

This shiat is about to go off. Nancy Grace is having multiple orgasms.

I concede to the fact that it was not illegal. It is still morally unethical for an attorney to get his freak on with a client. The age difference makes me feel sick. It seems like the entire group either has a thing for little and young people or has no problem with the friends raiding the daycare for sexual jollies.

Birds of a feather...

Nabb1: Having sex with a client can be an ethical violation in many jurisdictions. I mean, he's representing her in an emancipation proceeding when she's sixteen and then she gives birth to his child at seventeen? It doesn't take a rocket surgeon to figure out something fishy is going on there.

He wasn't having sex with a client, he was having sex with a co-worker. She subsequently became a client, presumably when her parents tried to get in the way of him farking their 16 year old daughter. That's my guess at least.

Amendola represented a 16-year-old girl then known as Mary Iavasile when she filed an emancipation petition in September 1996. The emancipation petition said the girl had graduated from high school in two years with a 3.69 GPA and held a fulltime job at Amendola's law office.

To be fair, everything west of Lancaster County is just depressing.

These guys are making the amish look better by the day

Nabb1: Are you seriously defending a middle aged attorney having sex with a teenage employee and then representing her in emancipation proceedings? Is that what I am reading here? I find that appalling behavior for an attorney.

I mean, there are plenty of good reasons to attack a 49 year old attorney who farks his 16 year old client without making stuff up. He wasn't farking his client, he was farking a co-worker. What he was doing is legal. There is still plenty of room here to be appalled without making this shiat up.

gilgigamesh: lennavan: She subsequently became a client, presumably when her parents tried to get in the way of him farking their 16 year old daughter.

Yeah, that would be unethical.

I don't know that it is. I get that if a client walks through your door, it's unethical to subsequently fark them. But someone you are currently farking, it's unethical to represent them? For a specific situation - is it unethical for a husband to represent his wife? I dunno. If you've got a citation or whatnot on ethical guidelines that says no, I'd be happy to look it over.

Nabb1: I never said he broke the law. What he did may have been unethical as far as I know, but I haven't said that he broke the law. I don't know whether the sexual relationship was before or after representation, and whether or not Pennsylvania rules make that distinction, I can't say, but at the very least the guy had a conflict of interest representing a teenage girl in emancipation proceedings if he was romantically involved with her.

Me either. I'm making an assumption, which I declared above.

lennavan: That's my guess at least.

16 year old girl is interested in law. The mother's understanding is that he is her mentor. At some point the lawyer started farking the girl. At some point lawyer represented the girl.

The way I connected the dots was the 16 year old showed up at his door interested in law. Guy hired her. Then he started farking her. Then she wanted to move out and move in with him and continue farking her and that's why she wanted to be emancipated. They key assumption here is the why she wanted to be emancipated. I think she wanted to be emancipated to be with him. So that is when he represented her.

It's pretty messed up to fark the 16 year old girl you're mentoring. But it's legal. And it's completely different than and significantly better than raping 10 year old boys in the shower. So considering the two at the same time is just dumb. That's the point I'm making here.

gilgigamesh: If he undertook to represent her because he wanted to get her parents to leave him alone so he could fark her unimpeded, her parents could have filed a bar complaint to the effect that she is a minor, and her lawyer is representing her solely for the selfish purpose of interfering with their lawful parental authority so he can continue banging her, and he would have had a serious problem on his hands.

I got no beef with that. It's still not the same as raping a 10 year old boy.