Summary
The Supreme Court of Ohio indefinitely suspended attorney Jay Alan Goldblatt from the practice of law after he was convicted of compelling prostitution and possessing criminal tools arising from an attempt to arrange a sexual encounter with a minor. The court held that the conduct violated Disciplinary Rules 1-102(A)(3) and 1-102(A)(6), and denied credit for his interim suspension. Costs were taxed to Goldblatt.
Topics
Practice areas
Questions Presented
- Whether respondent’s criminal conduct violated Disciplinary Rules 1-102(A)(3) and 1-102(A)(6).
- What sanction is appropriate for a lawyer who engaged in sexually motivated conduct involving an underage victim and was convicted of related felonies.
- Whether respondent was entitled to credit for the period of interim suspension imposed after his felony convictions.
Holdings
- Respondent’s conduct underlying his convictions for compelling prostitution and possessing criminal tools violated DR 1-102(A)(3), which prohibits illegal conduct involving moral turpitude, and DR 1-102(A)(6), which prohibits conduct adversely reflecting on a lawyer’s fitness to practice law.
- An indefinite suspension is appropriate when a lawyer engages in or attempts to engage in sexually motivated conduct with an underage victim, particularly where the conduct severely undermines the lawyer’s trustworthiness and fitness to practice.
- Respondent was not entitled to credit for his interim suspension because he did not raise the issue in his written objections, and the request was therefore not properly before the court.
- A lawyer convicted of felonies stemming from sexually motivated conduct cannot expect credit for an interim suspension unless the lawyer demonstrates that the conviction resulted from a one-time, never-to-be-repeated mistake and that the lawyer poses no danger of reoffending.
Key quotations
“We are convinced that an indefinite suspension will help protect the public, deter other lawyers from similar wrongdoing, and preserve the public’s trust in the legal profession.” (at 315)
Factual background
In 2004, respondent attempted through three telephone conversations to arrange a sexual encounter with a girl as young as nine, not realizing that he was speaking with an undercover FBI agent. He was convicted of compelling prostitution and possessing criminal tools and received community-control sanctions, including restrictions concerning children and computer inspections. A later inspection found eleven images of nude children, resulting in a community-control violation and 42 days in jail. Respondent underwent therapy and mental-health treatment, but the court found that his criminal conduct and continued minimization of his wrongdoing severely undermined his trustworthiness and fitness to practice law.
Procedural history
Respondent was placed on interim suspension after notice of his felony convictions. A panel of the disciplinary board heard the matter, including the parties’ stipulations, found misconduct, and recommended an indefinite suspension; the board adopted that recommendation. Respondent filed written objections but did not challenge the findings or recommended sanction, instead seeking at oral argument credit for his interim suspension. The Supreme Court of Ohio rejected that request as not properly before it and imposed an indefinite suspension without credit.