Cleveland Metropolitan Bar Ass'n v. Sleibi
144 Ohio St. 3d 257
| Ohio | 2015Background
- Sleibi is an Ohio-licensed attorney admitted in 2003 with offices in Lakewood and South Euclid.
- A September 11, 2013 probable-cause panel certified a grievance alleging violations of Prof.Cond.R. 1.8(j) and 8.4(h) for sexual activity with four clients.
- The panel found violations of 1.8(j) and 8.4(h) and recommended a two-year suspension with one year stayed; the board adopted this report.
- Relator objected, seeking an indefinite suspension.
- The Court adopted the board’s findings but imposed two years' suspension with six months stayed, under conditions including treatment and OLAP requirements, plus a two-year probationary period.
- The opinion also discusses aggravating/mitigating factors, including mental-health disabilities and cooperation, and rejects sex addiction as a mitigating factor.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Sleibi violated 1.8(j) by sexual activity with clients | Relator: violations established; four clients involved | Sleibi: disputed? (no explicit defense in text) | Yes, multiple violations of 1.8(j) found by panel and board |
| Whether Sleibi violated 8.4(h) based on egregious conduct | Relator: egregious conduct shown by sex with clients and explicit messages | Sleibi: argues remorse and treatment mitigate harm | Yes, 8.4(h) violation established due to egregious conduct and harm to clients |
| Appropriate sanction given the aggravating/mitigating factors | Indefinite suspension sought | Two-year suspension with stayed portion and conditions advocated | Two years' suspension with six months stayed, conditioned and probationary period |
| Role of mental-health disabilities and whether sex addiction is mitigating | Mental-health issues relevant; sex addiction not recognized | Arguments regarding remorse and treatment emphasized | Mental-health disability recognized as mitigating; sex addiction not recognized; anxiety/depression support mitigation |
Key Cases Cited
- Disciplinary Counsel v. Bunstine, 136 Ohio St.3d 276 (2013-Ohio-3681) (guides weighing aggravating/mitigating factors in discipline)
- Disciplinary Counsel v. Broeren, 115 Ohio St.3d 473 (2007-Ohio-5251) (aggravating/mitigating-factor framework under BCGD Proc.Reg. 10(B))
- Disciplinary Counsel v. Bricker, 137 Ohio St.3d 35 (2013-Ohio-3998) (egregious misconduct and safeguarding client trust; Bricker as to 8.4(h) evaluation)
- Disciplinary Counsel v. Moore, 101 Ohio St.3d 261 (2004-Ohio-734) (one-year suspension for dual misconduct and vulnerable client impact)
- Booher, 75 Ohio St.3d 509 (1999-Ohio-???) (stayed vs. unstayed suspension for sexual conduct with client; emphasis on vulnerability)
- Sturgeon, 111 Ohio St.3d 285 (2006-Ohio-5708) (disallowed conduct with clients; severe sanction for multiple misuses of attorney role)
- Detweiler, 135 Ohio St.3d 447 (2013-Ohio-1747) (one-year, unstated suspension for repeated sexual advances to a client)
- Goldblatt, 118 Ohio St.3d 310 (2008-Ohio-2458) (mitigation for therapy and progress; not relying on sex addiction)