2023 Ohio 3992
Ohio2023Background
- Gregory E. Carter, an Ohio attorney, represented incarcerated client Eric McClain in motions for judicial release; McClain’s mother (Fabian) paid advance fees ($500 and $300) that Carter did not deposit into his client trust account.
- Carter invited J.G. (the mother of McClain’s child) to his office, purportedly to discuss the case; the board found he lured her, read his work product to her, solicited a sexual “reward,” and coerced her into performing oral sex.
- J.G. recorded part of the encounter and Carter photographed her as she left; she later reported the incident and police investigated.
- Carter initially denied sexual contact to a detective, then admitted when confronted with the recording; he stipulated to a violation of Prof.Cond.R. 8.4(c) and the board found violations of Prof.Cond.R. 1.15(a) and 8.4(h).
- The Board recommended a six-month suspension (with CLE conditions). The Supreme Court overruled Carter’s objections, affirmed the misconduct findings, and imposed a two-year suspension with one year conditionally stayed (plus CLE and reinstatement conditions). A dissent would have imposed a full two-year suspension without stay.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Are the board’s factual findings about the sexual encounter supported? | Relator: J.G.’s testimony, recording, and other evidence prove coercion and support board credibility findings. | Carter: recording, photos, and his testimony show consent and contradict J.G.; prosecutor declined charges. | Board and court deferred to panel credibility determinations; findings supported by clear and convincing evidence. |
| Did Carter’s sexual conduct violate Prof.Cond.R. 8.4(h)? | Relator: Luring a vulnerable non-client into the office, soliciting sex as a reward for legal work, and coercion reflect adversely on fitness to practice. | Carter: Both adults were consenting and unconnected to representation; conduct did not create a conflict or impair representation. | Court held conduct violated Prof.Cond.R. 8.4(h); attorney exploited client relationship and victim’s vulnerability. |
| Did Carter violate Prof.Cond.R. 1.15(a) and 8.4(c)? | Relator: Failure to deposit advance fees into trust account and lying to police constitute violations. | Carter: Failures were isolated, corrected, caused no client harm, and do not warrant an actual suspension. | Carter stipulated to 8.4(c); board and court found 1.15(a) violation as charged. |
| What sanction is appropriate? | Relator/board: suspension (board recommended 6 months actual) plus CLE on professionalism and sexual-harassment training. | Carter: a fully stayed six-month suspension is sufficient. | Court imposed two-year suspension with one year conditionally stayed; reinstatement conditioned on CLE (6 hours, ≥3 on sexual-harassment) and other requirements. |
Key Cases Cited
- Disciplinary Counsel v. Bricker, 137 Ohio St.3d 35 (recognizing that sexual misconduct connected to legal practice may violate Prof.Cond.R. 8.4(h))
- Zingarelli v. Disciplinary Counsel, 89 Ohio St.3d 210 (deference to panel credibility findings)
- Cuyahoga Cty. Bar Assn. v. Wise, 108 Ohio St.3d 164 (courts defer to hearing-panel credibility determinations)
- Fowerbaugh v. Disciplinary Counsel, 74 Ohio St.3d 187 (presumption of actual suspension for dishonesty in attorney conduct)
- Lorain Cty. Bar Assn. v. Lewis, 152 Ohio St.3d 614 (two-year suspension, with partial stay, for false statements to police)
- Lake Cty. Bar Assn. v. Mismas, 139 Ohio St.3d 346 (attorney’s sexual solicitations reflect on fitness to practice)
- Disciplinary Counsel v. Skolnick, 153 Ohio St.3d 283 (partially stayed suspension for sexual harassment of employee)
- Disciplinary Counsel v. Leon, 155 Ohio St.3d 582 (partially stayed suspension where attorney engaged in sexual relationship with client during representation)
- Disciplinary Counsel v. Owen, 142 Ohio St.3d 323 (two-year suspension, with partial stay, where attorney had sexual relationship with client’s spouse)
- Akron Bar Assn. v. Miller, 130 Ohio St.3d 1 (sexual comments toward clients/witnesses can violate ethical rules)
- Cleveland Metro. Bar Assn. v. Lockshin, 125 Ohio St.3d 529 (multiple sexualized comments and inappropriate touching support discipline)