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

Siewert, Disciplinary Counsel. v.
130 Ohio St.3d 402, 2011-Ohio-5935. Decided 11/23/2011.
Case Summaries- 309
Respondent engaged in a sexual relationship with one of his clients. Respondent was previously
suspended for two years with 18 months stayed in 1988. The parties entered into a consent-todiscipline
agreement and jointly recommended a six-month stayed suspension. Respondent took
a divorce case; he paid for chemical dependency treatment for the client and later engaged in a
sexual relationship with her. This conduct violated Prof.Cond.R. 1.7(a)(2) (personal interests
limit ability to practice), 1.8(j) (sexual activity with a client), 8.4(d) (conduct prejudicial to the
administration of justice), 8.4(h) (conduct adversely reflecting on fitness to practice law). The
Court agreed with the above findings. In aggravation, respondent has a prior disciplinary
history. BCGD Proc.Reg. 10(B)(1)(a). In mitigation, respondent lacked a dishonest or selfish
motive, provided full and free disclosure to disciplinary counsel, and presented evidence of good
character. BCGD Proc.Reg. 10(B)(2)(b), (d), (e). Respondent had also recently lost his wife to
cancer before he met his client and was suffering from depression. The board accepted the
consent-to-discipline agreement. The Court noted that usually this conduct deserves a public
reprimand. See DePietro (1994), Paxton (1993), and Ressing (1990). However, since
respondent has a prior disciplinary record, the Court agreed with the board and accepted the
consent-to-discipline agreement.
Rules Violated: Prof.Cond.R. 1.7(a)(2), 1.8(j), 8.4(d), 8.4(h)
Aggravation: NONE
Mitigation: (a)
Prior Discipline: YES Procedure/ Process Issues: NO Criminal Conduct: NO
Public Official: NO Sanction: Six-month suspension, stayed