Akron Bar Assn. v. Miller
130 Ohio St. 3d 1
| Ohio | 2011Background
- Miller was appointed to defend a client in a show-cause contempt case for child-support, with no prior acquaintance.
- He met the client on December 10, 2009 and January 15, 2010; a February 2, 2010 phone contact occurred while she was arriving home from work.
- The client began recording the February 2 call after feeling uncomfortable about the time and topics discussed.
- During the approximately four-minute recording, Miller asked about the client’s breast size and suggested she show him her breasts and perform oral sex.
- No physical sexual activity occurred; Miller’s conduct was alleged to adversely reflect on his fitness to practice law.
- The grievance was filed in March 2010; Miller moved to withdraw as counsel in April 2010; the bar filed a complaint August 16, 2010; a hearing occurred February 15, 2011, based on stipulations, testimony, and exhibits.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Miller violated Prof.Cond.R. 8.4(h). | Akron Bar asserts misconduct reflecting on fitness. | Miller contends mitigation and no sexual relationship; conduct isolated. | Yes, violated; conduct adversely reflected on fitness. |
| What sanction is appropriate given the misconduct. | Board’s recommended six-month suspension, stayed, with probation. | Mitigating factors present; support staying suspension conditioned on treatment. | Six-month suspension stayed, with one-year probation and ongoing treatment. |
Key Cases Cited
- Butler Cty. Bar Assn. v. Williamson, 117 Ohio St.3d 399 (2008-Ohio-1196) (discusses range of sanctions for sexual misconduct with clients)
- Cleveland Bar Assn. v. Kodish, 110 Ohio St.3d 162 (2006-Ohio-4090) (early precedent on sanctions for sexual misconduct with clients)
- Disciplinary Counsel v. Sturgeon, 111 Ohio St.3d 285 (2006-Ohio-5708) (multiple instances of sexual conduct with clients; harsher sanctions possible)
- Disciplinary Counsel v. Detweiler, 127 Ohio St.3d 73 (2010-Ohio-5033) (consensual relationship did not compromise client interests; varied sanctions)
- Allen Cty. Bar Assn. v. Bartels, 124 Ohio St.3d 527 (2010-Ohio-1046) (considers harm versus consensual relationships in sanctions decisions)