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

Cunningham, Butler Cty. Bar Assn. v.
118 Ohio St.3d 188, 2008-Ohio-1979. Decided 5/1/2008.
Case Summaries- 57
Respondent agreed to represent a client in a postdecree domestic-relations proceeding arising from a
2001 divorce. Allegations arose suggesting that the client‘s ex-husband might not have reported to the
court assets subject to division as marital property, including funds that might have bee obtained
illegally. Respondent cited the allegations in a January 2005 letter to the ex-husband, hoping to induce
payment of child support, spousal support, health insurance, education expenses. The letter presented a
list of demands and promised the client would ―forgo further proceedings if the ex-husband agreed to the
demands. The letter promised the respondent‘s client would ―proceed no further with her investigation‖
if the ex-husband took ―advantage of this offer.‖ The letter created legal problems for the ex-husband but
the harm resulted more from the ex- husband‘s wrongdoing than from the promise to pursue legal
proceedings. The domestic- relations court granted respondent‘s motion to vacate the divorce decree
and found that ex-husband defrauded the court. The ex-husband filed a grievance alleging that
respondent attempted to exert improper influence to gain an advantage. Respondent denied explicitly or
implicitly threatening criminal prosecution, explaining he intended to quickly and quietly resolve the
couple‘s financial differences without jeopardizing the ex- husband‘s employment. The board adopted
the panel‘s findings, conclusions, and recommendation. The Supreme Court of Ohio agreed with the
board‘s findings that the letter violated DR 7-105. In mitigation, respondent has no prior disciplinary
record, did not act out of dishonesty or selfishness, and cooperated in the proceeding. BCGD ProcReg.
10(B)(2)(a), (b), and (d). He had a reputation for candor, truthfulness, fairness, and professionalism and is
credited with being an ―effective, diligent, and prepared advocate. No aggravating factors were found.
The court accepted the Board‘s recommended sanction of a public reprimand for a violation of DR 7-
105(A). Citations to Wise (2006) and Cohen (1999).
Rules Violated: DR 7-105(A)
Aggravation: NONE
Mitigation: (a), (b), (d)
Prior Discipline: NO Procedure/ Process Issues: NO Criminal Conduct: NO
Public Official: NO Sanction: Public Reprimand