Disciplinary Counsel v. Bunstine, 136 Ohio St. 3d 276

In July 2010 Ashley Holdren met with attorney Edward R. Bunstine about a child‑custody/companionship matter; she had retained him earlier for related proceedings.
During a meeting about fee arrangements, Bunstine suggested he could come to Holdren’s home and told her to answer the door naked; Holdren found the comment offensive and left.
Less than an hour later Bunstine called, was told not to come, but drove to Holdren’s house; a confrontation ensued and Bunstine later returned with his wife; Holdren permitted him to represent her at a hearing five days later because she lacked time to obtain new counsel.
Holdren filed a grievance; a disciplinary-panel hearing found violations of Prof.Cond.R. 1.8(j) (no sexual solicitation of a client) and 8.4(h) (conduct reflecting adversely on fitness to practice).
The Board adopted the panel’s findings and recommended a one‑year suspension with six months stayed; the Supreme Court deferred to panel credibility findings, upheld the misconduct findings, and imposed that sanction (costs taxed).

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether Bunstine’s comment solicited sexual activity in violation of Prof.Cond.R. 1.8(j) and 8.4(h)	The statement to "answer the door naked" made in the context of fee arrangements constituted solicitation of sexual activity and reflected adversely on fitness	The comment was innocuous or only asked to elicit a response; no intent to solicit or exchange sex for services	Held: clear-and-convincing evidence of violation of Prof.Cond.R. 1.8(j) and 8.4(h)
Whether an attorney–client relationship existed when the comment was made	An implied attorney‑client relationship existed based on past representation and reasonable expectation	Bunstine disputed that he was Holdren’s attorney at that moment	Held: an attorney–client relationship existed by implication
Credibility of witnesses (Holdren vs. Bunstine)	Panel credited Holdren’s testimony that she did not invite Bunstine and was disgusted/scared	Bunstine urged the panel to credit his version that Holdren invited him and initiated conduct	Held: Court deferred to panel’s credibility determinations and credited Holdren
Appropriate sanction given misconduct and prior discipline	One‑year suspension with six months stayed (board recommendation)	Bunstine argued for a lesser sanction, distinguishing this conduct from more egregious prior cases	Held: One‑year suspension, six months stayed on condition of no further misconduct; costs taxed

Cuyahoga Cty. Bar Assn. v. Wise, 108 Ohio St.3d 164 (credibility deference to hearing panels)
Cincinnati Bar Assn. v. Statzer, 101 Ohio St.3d 14 (same principle of deference)
Disciplinary Counsel v. Booher, 75 Ohio St.3d 509 (lawyer must keep attorney‑client dealings professional)
Cleveland Bar Assn. v. Feneli, 86 Ohio St.3d 102 (sexual relations with client => significant discipline)
Cuyahoga Cty. Bar Assn. v. Hardiman, 100 Ohio St.3d 260 (attorney‑client relationship may be implied)
Akron Bar Assn. v. Miller, 130 Ohio St.3d 1 (sanctions for sexual advances; mitigation via remorse/therapy)
Cleveland Metro. Bar Assn. v. Lockshin, 125 Ohio St.3d 529 (conduct reflecting on fitness to practice)
Disciplinary Counsel v. Quatman, 108 Ohio St.3d 389 (sexual comments/touching client => stayed suspension and probation)
Disciplinary Counsel v. Broeren, 115 Ohio St.3d 473 (consideration of aggravating/mitigating factors)
Disciplinary Counsel v. Moore, 101 Ohio St.3d 261 (unsolicited sexual advances to client warrant significant discipline)
Akron Bar Assn. v. Williams, 104 Ohio St.3d 317 (sexual relationship with vulnerable client and dishonesty => severe sanction)