2016 Ohio 3333
Ohio2016Background
- N. Shannon Bartels, admitted 1994, previously publicly reprimanded in 2010 for a sexual relationship with a client.
- In 2012 Bartels represented Troy Bailey in a divorce; the divorce was finalized in July 2013.
- From late Feb/early Mar 2013 for about one month, Bartels and Bailey exchanged multiple mutually sexual text messages; they did not have sexual intercourse.
- Bailey (via texts) and his girlfriend later threatened to expose the messages and demanded money; Bartels reported the extortion and Bailey and his girlfriend were convicted of obstructing justice.
- Disciplinary counsel charged Bartels with violating Prof.Cond.R. 1.8(j) (prohibiting soliciting or engaging in sexual activity with a client). The parties stipulated misconduct and jointly proposed a fully stayed one-year suspension.
- The Board recommended a one-year suspension with six months stayed (conditions: six CLE hours on professionalism and a one-year mentoring/monitored probation); the Supreme Court adopted the Board’s recommendation.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Relator) | Defendant's Argument (Bartels) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Bartels violated Prof.Cond.R. 1.8(j) by exchanging sexually oriented text messages with a client | Text messaging sexual content with a client constitutes prohibited sexual activity under Prof.Cond.R. 1.8(j) | Messages were mutual, consensual, did not lead to intercourse, and did not impair representation | Yes—court adopted Board’s finding that the texts violated Prof.Cond.R. 1.8(j) |
| Appropriate sanction for repeated violation of the rule | A one-year suspension with six months stayed (Board’s recommendation); relator ultimately joined respondent’s request for a fully stayed one-year suspension | Agreed to a fully stayed one-year suspension given consensual nature and lack of impairment | Court imposed one-year suspension with six months stayed, subject to CLE, mentoring, monitored probation, payment of costs |
Key Cases Cited
- Allen Cty. Bar Assn. v. Bartels, 124 Ohio St.3d 527 (public reprimand for prior sexual relationship with a client)
- Disciplinary Counsel v. Detweiler, 127 Ohio St.3d 73 (prior Detweiler discipline)
- Disciplinary Counsel v. Detweiler, 135 Ohio St.3d 447 (repeated unsolicited sexual texts to client; one-year actual suspension imposed)
- Lake Cty. Bar Assn. v. Mismas, 139 Ohio St.3d 346 (one-year suspension with six months stayed for explicit texts and exploitation of a vulnerable subordinate)
- Disciplinary Counsel v. Booher, 75 Ohio St.3d 509 (1996) (lawyer’s duty to keep attorney-client dealings professional)