Summary
The Supreme Court of Ohio publicly reprimanded attorney Anna Schmalz for violating professional-conduct rules governing conflicts of interest and sexual activity with a client. The court adopted the stipulated facts and consent-to-discipline agreement, concluding that the misconduct was among the least egregious cases of sexual misconduct and that a public reprimand was appropriate.
Topics
Practice areas
Questions Presented
- Whether Schmalz violated Prof.Cond.R. 1.7(a)(2) by allowing her personal relationship with a criminal-defense client to create a substantial risk that her representation would be compromised.
- Whether Schmalz violated Prof.Cond.R. 1.8(j) by soliciting or engaging in sexual activity with a client during the representation.
- What disciplinary sanction was appropriate for the stipulated misconduct.
Holdings
- Schmalz violated Prof.Cond.R. 1.7(a)(2) by creating a conflict of interest through her personal relationship with the client and violated Prof.Cond.R. 1.8(j) by soliciting or engaging in sexual activity with the client during the representation.
- A public reprimand was an adequate sanction for Schmalz’s misconduct.
Key quotations
“We agree with the recommendation, and we order that respondent be publicly reprimanded for her misconduct.” (¶ 2)
“Consistent with this case law, we adopt the recommendation of the board and order that respondent be publicly reprimanded.” (¶ 9)
Factual background
Schmalz was appointed to represent a criminal defendant in two indictments and advised him to accept a plea offer. During the representation, Schmalz engaged in a romantic and sexual relationship with the client, including telephonic sexual activity and discussions about continuing the relationship after his release. The parties stipulated that she effectively performed her function as counsel, but acknowledged that the relationship created a conflict of interest and violated the professional-conduct rules.
Procedural history
The Cincinnati Bar Association filed a disciplinary complaint against respondent Anna Schmalz. After investigation, the parties stipulated to the facts and agreed to a public reprimand for violations of the Ohio Rules of Professional Conduct. The Board of Commissioners on Grievances and Discipline recommended that the Supreme Court of Ohio adopt the agreement, and the Supreme Court accepted the recommendation.