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

Detweiler, Disciplinary Counsel v.
127 Ohio St.3d 73, 2010-Ohio-5033. Decided 10/21/2010.
Case Summaries- 65
Respondent improperly engaged in sexual relations with a client. Parties entered into a consent-todiscipline
agreement. In April 2008, a female client retained respondent to represent her in a divorce
action. In the next month, respondent and his client started expressing romantic and sexual feelings
towards one another in person and by telephone and e-mail. Then, a month later they had a sexual
encounter in the client‘s car. They exchange sexual e-mails in July and August. In September 2008, the
sexual relationship ended, but he continued to represent her until she terminated his services in July
2009. The panel and the board accepted the consent-to-discipline agreement as to violations of
Prof.Cond.R. 1.8(j), 1.7(a)(2), and 8.4(h) and a sanction of a public reprimand. No aggravating
factors are present. In mitigation, there is no prior discipline and a cooperative attitude towards the
disciplinary process. BCGD Proc.Reg. 10(B)(2)(a) and (d). The court noted that this case involved
consensual, legal sexual encounters, and that they did not compromise the client‘s interests. The court
cited Schmalz (2009) and Engler (2006), cases in which attorneys received a public reprimand for sexual
relationship with clients when the relationships are legal and consensual and no client‘s interests are
compromised. The court adopted the consent-to-discipline agreement and so ordered a public reprimand.
Rules Violated: Prof.Cond.R. 1.7(a)(2), 1.8(j), 8.4(h)
Aggravation: NONE
Mitigation: (a), (d)
Prior Discipline: NO Procedure/ Process Issues: NO Criminal Conduct: NO
Public Official: NO Sanction: Public Reprimand