Summary
The Ohio Supreme Court addressed professional misconduct arising from an attorney’s sexual relationship with a vulnerable client involved in custody and criminal traffic matters, along with the attorney’s subsequent deception under oath. The court imposed a two-year suspension from practice, staying the final 18 months on the condition that the attorney complete a professional counseling program concerning the attorney-client relationship.
Holdings
- Williams violated DR 1-102(A)(4), which prohibits fraud, deceit, dishonesty, or misrepresentation, and DR 1-102(A)(6), which prohibits conduct adversely reflecting on an attorney's fitness to practice law, by exploiting a vulnerable client through a sexual relationship and deceiving disciplinary authorities about it.
- A two-year suspension from the practice of law was appropriate, with the final eighteen months stayed on the condition that Williams complete a professional counseling program concerning the ethical proprieties of the attorney-client relationship.
Questions Presented
- Whether Williams violated DR 1-102(A)(4) and DR 1-102(A)(6) by engaging in a sexual relationship with a vulnerable client and then lying about the relationship.
- What sanction was appropriate for the misconduct, including whether the suspension should be stayed in part.
Disposition
other
Cases Cited (4)
- Disciplinary Counsel v. Moore, 101 Ohio St. 3d 261, 2004-Ohio-734, 804 N.E.2d 423, ¶ 15(distinguished)
- In re Disciplinary Proceedings Against Gibson, 124 Wis. 2d 466, 474-475, 369 N.W.2d 695 (1985)(followed)
- Disciplinary Counsel v. Hutchins, 102 Ohio St. 3d 97, 2004-Ohio-1805, 807 N.E.2d 303, ¶¶ 32-33(followed)
- Disciplinary Counsel v. Fowerbaugh, 74 Ohio St. 3d 187, 658 N.E.2d 237, syllabus(followed)
Cited In (0)
No citing cases on record yet.
Court Document
Open PDFLoading document…