Summary
Attorney Andrew E. Russ was suspended for two years with one year conditionally stayed for violating Prof.Cond.R. 1.8(j) by soliciting a sexual relationship with a vulnerable client, and for making false statements during the disciplinary process (Prof.Cond.R. 8.1(a)). He also violated Prof.Cond.R. 8.4(d) by repeatedly being late or failing to appear for hearings on behalf of ten clients. The Ohio Supreme Court imposed conditions on reinstatement including continued compliance with an OLAP contract, additional professionalism CLE, and a healthcare professional's opinion that Russ can ethically represent female clients.
Holdings
- Russ violated Prof.Cond.R. 1.8(j) by soliciting a sexual relationship with C.L., a vulnerable client, through explicit text messages.
- Russ violated Prof.Cond.R. 8.1(a) by knowingly making false statements in his response to relator's letter of inquiry and during his deposition.
- Russ violated Prof.Cond.R. 8.4(h) because his conduct toward C.L. was sufficiently egregious to merit a separate violation.
- Russ violated Prof.Cond.R. 8.4(d) by being repeatedly late for or failing to appear at hearings, which prejudiced the administration of justice.
- A two-year suspension with one year conditionally stayed, along with specific conditions on reinstatement, is the appropriate sanction.
Questions Presented
- Whether Russ violated Prof.Cond.R. 1.8(j) by soliciting a sexual relationship with a client
- Whether Russ violated Prof.Cond.R. 8.1(a) by knowingly making false statements in a disciplinary matter
- Whether Russ violated Prof.Cond.R. 8.4(h) by engaging in conduct that adversely reflects on his fitness to practice
- Whether Russ violated Prof.Cond.R. 8.4(d) by engaging in conduct prejudicial to the administration of justice
- What sanction is appropriate for the misconduct
Disposition
other
Cases Cited (7)
- Disciplinary Counsel v. Bricker, 137 Ohio St.3d 35, 2013-Ohio-3998, 997 N.E.2d 500(followed)
- Lake Cty. Bar Assn. v. Mismas, 139 Ohio St.3d 346, 2014-Ohio-2483, 11 N.E.3d 1180(distinguished)
- Disciplinary Counsel v. Detweiler, 135 Ohio St.3d 447, 2013-Ohio-1747, 989 N.E.2d 41(distinguished)
- Disciplinary Counsel v. Benbow, 153 Ohio St.3d 350, 2018-Ohio-2705, 106 N.E.3d 57(followed)
- Disciplinary Counsel v. Cox, 168 Ohio St.3d 78, 2022-Ohio-784, 195 N.E.3d 1018(followed)
- Disciplinary Counsel v. Porter, 166 Ohio St.3d 117, 2021-Ohio-4352, 182 N.E.3d 1188(followed)
- Disciplinary Counsel v. Sarver, 155 Ohio St.3d 100, 2018-Ohio-4717, 119 N.E.3d 405(followed)
Cited In (0)
No citing cases on record yet.
Court Document
Open PDFLoading document…