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

Miller, Akron Bar Assn. v.130 Ohio St.3d 1, 2011-Ohio-4412. Decided 9/7/2011.Case Summaries- 214Respondent made unprofessional sexual statements to his client over the telephone. Respondent wasappointed to represent a client in a domestic relations matter. During the course of the representation,respondent called the client and made sexual comments to her, including inquiring about her breast size,requesting to see the client‘s breasts, and request the client perform oral sex on him. The client tapedthe conversation and gave the tape to relator. Respondent claimed the comments were not meant to besexual, but instead, were meant to harm and degrade the client. This conduct violated Prof.Cond.R.8.4(h) (adversely reflects on fitness to practice law). The Court adopted the findings. In aggravation,respondent displayed a selfish motive and harmed a vulnerable client. BCGD Proc.Reg. 10(B)(1)(b), (h).In mitigation, respondent has no prior discipline, cooperated in the disciplinary investigation, presentedevidence of good character, and had a mental illness. BCGD Proc.Reg. 10(B)(2)(a), (d), (e), (g). Theparties stipulated to a public reprimand; the board recommended a six-month suspension, stayed on theconditions of one year of probation and respondent‘s continued treatment for his mental illness. TheCourt noted that this case was not akin to a consensual sexual relationship with a client cases, such asWilliamson (2008), Kodish (2006), Sturgeon (2006), Detweiler (2010), and Bartels (2010), but insteadwas a deliberate attempt by respondent to demean and exploit his client‘s vulnerabilities. The Courtadopted the board‘s recommendation of a six-month suspension, stayed on the mentioned conditions.Rules Violated: Prof.Cond.R. 8.4(h)Aggravation: (b), (h)Mitigation: (a), (d), (e), (g)Prior Discipline: NO Procedure/ Process Issues: NO Criminal Conduct: NOPublic Official: NO Sanction: Six-month suspension, stayed