Summary
The Supreme Court of Ohio suspended N. Shannon Bartels from practicing law for one year, with six months stayed subject to conditions. The court found that Bartels violated Ohio Prof.Cond.R. 1.8(j) by exchanging sexually oriented text messages with a client, and it treated her prior discipline for the same rule violation as an aggravating factor. The conditions included additional continuing legal education, no further misconduct, payment of costs, and one year of monitored probation upon reinstatement.
Topics
Practice areas
Questions Presented
- Whether Bartels violated Prof.Cond.R. 1.8(j) by exchanging sexually oriented text messages with a client.
- What sanction was appropriate for Bartels's misconduct given her prior discipline and the aggravating and mitigating factors.
Holdings
- Bartels's sexually oriented text messaging with her client violated Prof.Cond.R. 1.8(j), which prohibits a lawyer from soliciting or engaging in sexual activity with a client unless a consensual sexual relationship existed before the client-lawyer relationship.
- A one-year suspension from the practice of law, with six months stayed subject to conditions, was the appropriate sanction for Bartels's second disciplinary violation of the same rule.
Key quotations
“the burden is on the lawyer to ensure that all attorney-client dealings remain on a professional level.” (¶ 15)
“N. Shannon Bartels is suspended from the practice of law in Ohio for one year with six months stayed, subject to the conditions” (¶ 16)
Factual background
Bartels represented Troy Bailey in a divorce proceeding. During the representation, Bartels and Bailey exchanged sexually oriented text messages for approximately one month, including nude photographs, although they did not engage in sexual intercourse. Bartels had previously received a public reprimand for violating the same professional-conduct rule. The court also considered that Bartels cooperated in the disciplinary process and presented evidence of good character.
Procedural history
Disciplinary counsel charged Bartels with violating Prof.Cond.R. 1.8(j) by exchanging sexually oriented text messages with a client. The parties stipulated to the misconduct and jointly recommended a fully stayed one-year suspension. A hearing panel recommended that agreement with additional conditions, but the Board of Professional Conduct recommended a one-year suspension with six months stayed subject to conditions. The Supreme Court of Ohio overruled Bartels's objections and adopted the board's sanction.