disciplinary handbook: volume v - Supreme Court - State of Ohio

Lockshin, Cleveland Metro. Bar Assn. v.
125 Ohio St.3d 529, 2010-Ohio-2207. Decided 5/25/2010.
Case Summaries- 182
Respondent engaged in a pattern of inappropriate sexual communication and behavior with a number of
women, including clients and failed to file a timely notice of appeal on behalf of a client. Counts 1
through 7 involve the inappropriate sexual communication and behavior. The misconduct included flirting
with and inappropriately touching a 17 year-old client for whom he was a court appointed attorney,
suggesting to a client that she and respondent get a hotel room on multiple occasions, requesting and
displaying to another a sexual photo of a female client, suggesting inappropriate sexual contact with
multiple clients, engaging in sensual touching with several clients and a defendant‘s girlfriend/witness,
and making remarks about his genitals to a female sergeant from the county sheriff‘s department; and
made an inappropriate question regarding her and her husband. Board adopted the panel‘s finding of a
violation of DR 1-102(A)(6) on all seven counts. In Count 8, respondent was appointed to represent a
defendant in a criminal appeal, but never filed the notice of appeal or took any action on the client‘s
behalf. Board adopted the panel‘s finding of a violation of Prof.Cond.R. 1.3 and 8.4(d). The parties
submitted evidence of his mental health. The OLAP clinical director made at tentative diagnosis of
frotteurism, a type of sexual disorder, and narcissistic-personality disorder. She referred him to
Behavioral Connections for further evaluation and counseling where he was initially diagnosed with
depressive disorder not otherwise specified and was referred for further sexual-offender evaluation and
treatment. It was recommended that respondent 1) participate in a sexual-offender treatment program,
2) not work with any minor clients, 3) not use any steroids or other supplements to enhance muscle
mass or appearance. Respondent discontinued treatment through Behavioral Connections in violation of
his OLAP contract; the discharging clinician testified that respondent poured energy into getting
discharged rather than completing treatment, and that respondent‘s prognosis was ―poor.‖ Respondent
subsequently sought counseling from a second licensed counselor who did not specialize in sex-offender
counseling and who diagnosed him as having narcissistic personality disorder tendencies. That
counselor learned at deposition that respondent omitted facts from him including the sexual nature of his
inappropriateness. The hearing panel, at respondent‘s request, continued the hearing that was
originally scheduled, to permit him to obtain a second sexual-offender assessment; but he did not
complete the assessment until after the rescheduled hearing. He later submitted to the panel the
assessment report in which the social worker stated that respondent discussed, without change of affect,
the separation and dissolution of his marriage and the unexpected death of his mother in the calendar year.
The social worker noted that respondent expresses realization that he needs treatment of some kind but
asserts he does not need sex-offender treatment and not group treatment. The social worker noted that
currently respondent appears to be keeping himself from inappropriate sexual behavior, however, that
was attributed to the high level of supervision and scrutiny and threat of loss of his law license. The
social worker recommended he participate in sexual offender treatment and that he not work with any
minor clients. Respondent‘s conduct is comparable to the conduct for which term suspensions were
imposed in Moore (2004), Burkholder, (2006), Quatman (2006), and Freeman (2005), but more
serious because of his multiple offenses, false testimony in depositions and failure to follow Behavioral
Connections recommendation that he receive sex-offender-specific treatment thereby violating the OLAP
contract. Unlike Sturgeon (2006) who was disbarred, respondent did not actually engage in sexual acts
with clients. In mitigation, the Board found that respondent had a lack of prior disciplinary record
BCGD Proc.Reg. 10(B)(2)(a). Because respondent sought to delay the disciplinary process by seeking
a continuance two weeks before the scheduled hearing date and engaged in a pattern of lying in
depositions, the board rejected the parties‘ stipulation of cooperation. In aggravation, he had multiple
counts of misconduct; gave false statements to investigators in depositions and court filings; engaged in
conduct that had a negative impact on his clients; many of whom were young, vulnerable women, a
disturbing pattern of professional misconduct; involving inappropriate sexual communications or
conduct; and a selfish motive to advance his own sexual interests at his clients‘ expense. BCGD
Proc.Reg. 10(B)(1)(b), (c), (d), (f), and (h). Respondent failed to take responsibility for his actions. He
moved from an almost categorical denial to a partial admission, but he continues to minimize his actions