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- 309Respondent engaged in a sexual relationship with one of his clients. Respondent was previouslysuspended for two years with 18 months stayed in 1988. The parties entered into a consent-todisciplineagreement and jointly recommended a six-month stayed suspension. Respondent tooka divorce case; he paid for chemical dependency treatment for the client and later engaged in asexual relationship with her. This conduct violated Prof.Cond.R. 1.7(a)(2) (personal interestslimit ability to practice), 1.8(j) (sexual activity with a client), 8.4(d) (conduct prejudicial to theadministration of justice), 8.4(h) (conduct adversely reflecting on fitness to practice law). TheCourt agreed with the above findings. In aggravation, respondent has a prior disciplinaryhistory. BCGD Proc.Reg. 10(B)(1)(a). In mitigation, respondent lacked a dishonest or selfishmotive, provided full and free disclosure to disciplinary counsel, and presented evidence of goodcharacter. BCGD Proc.Reg. 10(B)(2)(b), (d), (e). Respondent had also recently lost his wife tocancer before he met his client and was suffering from depression. The board accepted theconsent-to-discipline agreement. The Court noted that usually this conduct deserves a publicreprimand. See DePietro (1994), Paxton (1993), and Ressing (1990). However, sincerespondent has a prior disciplinary record, the Court agreed with the board and accepted theconsent-to-discipline agreement.Rules Violated: Prof.Cond.R. 1.7(a)(2), 1.8(j), 8.4(d), 8.4(h)Aggravation: NONEMitigation: (a)Prior Discipline: YES Procedure/ Process Issues: NO Criminal Conduct: NOPublic Official: NO Sanction: Six-month suspension, stayed