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

Bartels, Allen Cty. Bar Assn. v.
124 Ohio St.3d 527, 2010-Ohio-1046. Decided 3/25/2010.
Case Summaries- 19
Respondent engaged in sexual activity with a client. Relator and respondent entered into a consent-todiscipline
agreement. In February 2008, client retained respondent in a post- divorce matter involving
custody and visitation. Respondent met with the client and the client‘s wife and attended court
conferences on their behalf. Respondent attended a hearing at which there was a settlement of the case.
A judgment entry was submitted to and signed by the court on May 22, 2008. That same day, respondent
and client engaged in sexual activity. They had no prior romantic or sexual relationship between
them. After this encounter, respondent sent a letter to the client with the judgment entry and a bill. She
also faxed a copy of the judgment entry modifying custody and visitation to the county child support
enforcement agency. The sexual relationship with the client continued until September 2008. In
September 2008, respondent received a letter, which she forwarded to the client, notifying her of
problems regarding visitation, custody and payment of medical bills for her client‘s minor child.
Respondent admitted to sexual activity with her client after a confrontation with the client‘s wife in late
September. The client‘s wife filed a grievance. In the consent-to-discipline agreement respondent
admitted to violating Prof.Cond.R. 1.8(j). The Court quoted Comment 17 to Prof.Cond.R. 1.8 as it
explains the rationale of prohibiting sexual activity between clients and their attorneys. There were no
aggravating factors. In mitigation, the isolated misconduct had no adverse impact upon the
representation and was not part of a pattern of misconduct; there is a lack of prior disciplinary record, a
cooperative attitude by respondent in the disciplinary process, an absence of a dishonest or selfish motive,
and positive character evidence. BCGD Proc.Reg. 10(B)(2)(a), (b), (d), and (e). Review of case
precedent included Schmalz (2009) (public reprimand), Sturgeon (2006) (disbarment) and Krieger (2006)
(suspension). The Board recommended acceptance of the consent-to-discipline agreement. The Court
accepted the consent-to-discipline agreement and so ordered a public reprimand for a violation of
Prof.Cond.R. 1.8(j).
Rules Violated: Prof.Cond.R. 1.8(j)
Aggravation: NONE
Mitigation: (a), (b), (d), (e)
Prior Discipline: NO Procedure/ Process Issues: NO Criminal Conduct: NO
Public Official: NO Sanction: Public Reprimand