Disciplinary Counsel v. Hines
133 Ohio St. 3d 166
| Ohio | 2012Background
- Hines was accused of an inappropriate sexual relationship with a client and violat ing Prof.Cond.R. 1.8(j) and 8.4(h).
- Parties stipulated misconduct; Board initially recommended public reprimand but remanded for further proceedings.
- On remand, the Board recommended a 12-month suspension with six months stayed; cases were consolidated as No. 2011-0309 and No. 2011-1759.
- The relationship began in early 2009 during a domestic-relations dispute; after dinners, Hines pursued a personal relationship despite claims of no conflict.
- Hines continued representing the client, provided financial benefits (bookkeeping job, car, mortgage/utility payments) and moved the client and her children into his home.
- In Nov. 2009, after a personnel dispute, Hines called 911 for a domestic incident, obtained a temporary protection order, fired the client, and sent a letter adverse to her rights, leaving her without counsel at a critical time.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Did Hines’ conduct violate rules 1.8(j) and 8.4(h)? | Hines engaged in a sexual relationship with a vulnerable client. | The record shows a consensual relationship with no concealment of misconduct; not all factors imply violation. | Yes; court adopted findings that violated 1.8(j) and 8.4(h). |
| What sanction is appropriate for the misconduct? | Recommend suspension; concerns about protection of clients justify a harsher sanction. | Public reprimand or stayed suspension; no prior discipline and cooperation argued for leniency. | Six-month suspension with six months stayed; costs taxed. |
| Should aggravating/mitigating factors affect the sanction? | Aggravating factors supported a harsher penalty. | Mitigating factors (no prior discipline, cooperation, reputation) mitigate. | Aggravating factors found; mitigating factors acknowledged; sanction still stayed suspension. |
| Are prior comparable cases guidance for disposition? | Cases show harsher outcomes for improper relationships with clients. | Hines’ conduct was limited and cooperative; not like many severe suspensions. | Stayed six-month suspension consistent with Burkholder and Siewert; not total reprimand. |
Key Cases Cited
- Toledo Bar Assn. v. Burkholder, 109 Ohio St.3d 443 (2006-Ohio-2817) (six-month stayed suspension for improper relationship with a vulnerable client)
- Disciplinary Counsel v. Siewert, 130 Ohio St.3d 402 (2011-Ohio-5935) (consensual but improper relationship; mitigating factors discussed)
- Cleveland Metro. Bar Assn. v. Lockshin, 125 Ohio St.3d 529 (2010-Ohio-2207) (indefinite suspension for inappropriate sexual comments to clients and filing failures)
- Disciplinary Counsel v. Goldblatt, 118 Ohio St.3d 310 (2008-Ohio-2458) (indefinite suspension for attempting to arrange a sexual encounter with a minor)
- Butler Cty. Bar Assn. v. Williamson, 117 Ohio St.3d 399 (2008-Ohio-1196) (indefinite suspension for improper-relationship case involving a client)