Summary
The Supreme Court of Ohio held that Jason Allan Sarver committed professional misconduct by engaging in sexual activity with an indigent criminal-defense client, committing illegal acts, making misrepresentations, and engaging in conduct prejudicial to the administration of justice. The court imposed a two-year suspension from the practice of law, with the final 18 months stayed subject to specified conditions, including monitoring, professional-responsibility examination, counseling-related compliance, and no further misconduct.
Topics
Practice areas
Questions Presented
- Whether Sarver violated Prof.Cond.R. 1.8(j), 8.4(b), 8.4(c), and 8.4(d) through his sexual relationship with a client and related misconduct.
- Whether the apparent consent of the client or the absence of prejudice to the client's criminal case mitigated or excused the violation of Prof.Cond.R. 1.8(j).
- What disciplinary sanction was appropriate for Sarver's misconduct.
Holdings
- Sarver violated Prof.Cond.R. 1.8(j), 8.4(b), 8.4(c), and 8.4(d) by engaging in sexual activity with his client, committing an illegal act adversely reflecting on his honesty or trustworthiness, engaging in dishonesty or misrepresentation, and engaging in conduct prejudicial to the administration of justice.
- In the absence of a preexisting consensual sexual relationship, sexual activity between a lawyer and client is a per se violation of Prof.Cond.R. 1.8(j); apparent client consent and the absence of prejudice to the client's legal case neither provide a defense nor constitute a mitigating basis for avoiding discipline.
- Sarver's misconduct warrants a two-year suspension from the practice of law, with the final 18 months stayed subject to specified conditions.
Key quotations
“In the absence of a preexisting, consensual sexual relationship, seeking or having sex with a client is a per se violation.” (¶ 16)
“The lawyer-client relation in a criminal matter is inherently unequal.” (¶ 18)
“Failing to impose an actual suspension on a court-appointed, criminal-defense attorney who has violated Prof.Cond.R. 1.8(j) by having sex with his indigent client would contravene our obligation to protect the public.” (¶ 30)
Factual background
Sarver represented J.B., an indigent criminal defendant, after the court appointed him as her defense counsel. Before and during the representation, Sarver engaged in repeated sexual activity with J.B., advised her to disable her phone's GPS while an arrest warrant was outstanding, trespassed with her onto a neighbor's property, and falsely denied their relationship to the criminal-case judge. Sarver ultimately pleaded guilty to misdemeanor trespassing and obstructing-official-business charges after more serious charges, including sexual battery, were dismissed.
Procedural history
Disciplinary counsel charged Sarver with four violations of the Ohio Rules of Professional Conduct. The parties initially stipulated to a two-year suspension fully stayed on one condition, but the Supreme Court rejected that recommendation and remanded the matter. After a subsequent hearing, the Board adopted a recommendation for a two-year suspension fully stayed on multiple conditions. The Supreme Court agreed that misconduct occurred but imposed a two-year suspension with the final 18 months stayed on specified conditions.