Disciplinary Counsel v. VanBibber

Summary

The Supreme Court of Ohio suspended Jack Herchel VanBibber from the practice of law for two years and ordered him to pay the costs of the proceedings. The court adopted findings that he neglected a client matter, made false statements to a tribunal and disciplinary counsel, failed to cooperate with the disciplinary investigation, and solicited a client's significant other for sexual activity. The suspension was imposed without a stay.

Holdings

1. VanBibber violated Prof.Cond.R. 1.3 by failing to act with reasonable diligence, Prof.Cond.R. 3.3(a)(1) by knowingly making false statements to a tribunal, and Prof.Cond.R. 8.4(d) by engaging in conduct prejudicial to the administration of justice.
2. VanBibber violated Prof.Cond.R. 8.1(a) by knowingly making a false statement of material fact in connection with a disciplinary matter and Prof.Cond.R. 8.1(b) by knowingly failing to respond to demands for information from a disciplinary authority.
3. VanBibber violated Prof.Cond.R. 8.1(b) and 8.4(h). His electronically communicated sexual advances toward a client's significant other, although not expressly prohibited by another specific rule, adversely reflected on his fitness to practice law.
4. An actual two-year suspension from the practice of law, with no stay, was the appropriate sanction, and VanBibber was ordered to pay the costs of the proceedings.

Questions Presented

1. Whether VanBibber committed the stipulated and proven violations of the Ohio Rules of Professional Conduct.
2. Whether VanBibber's solicitation of a client's significant other for sexual activity and failure to respond to related disciplinary inquiries violated Prof.Cond.R. 8.1(b) and 8.4(h).
3. What sanction was appropriate for VanBibber's combined misconduct, aggravating factors, and mitigating factors.

Disposition

other