Disciplinary Counsel v. Hubbell
144 Ohio St. 3d 334
| Ohio | 2015Background
- Respondent Bradley Francis Hubbell, an Ohio attorney admitted in 2002, was accused of soliciting a romantic/sexual relationship with a pro bono client in a custody dispute.
- Disciplinary Counsel filed a complaint alleging violations of Prof.Cond.R. 1.8(j) (prohibiting solicitation/engagement in sexual activity with a client absent a preexisting consensual relationship) and 8.4(h) (conduct reflecting adversely on fitness to practice).
- Hubbell entered a consent-to-discipline agreement: he stipulated to the facts and to a violation of Prof.Cond.R. 1.8(j); the parties agreed to dismiss the Prof.Cond.R. 8.4(h) allegation.
- Mitigating factors: no prior discipline, cooperation/acceptance of responsibility, good character and reputation. Aggravating factor: the client’s vulnerability.
- The parties stipulated to a six-month suspension, fully stayed on condition of no further misconduct; the Board approved and recommended adoption by the Supreme Court.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Hubbell violated Prof.Cond.R. 1.8(j) by soliciting sexual activity with a client | Hubbell solicited a romantic/sexual relationship with his client, violating Prof.Cond.R. 1.8(j) | Hubbell stipulated to the facts and the violation (consent-to-discipline) | Court found a violation of Prof.Cond.R. 1.8(j) and adopted the consent sanction |
| Whether Hubbell’s conduct also violated Prof.Cond.R. 8.4(h) | Alleged that the conduct reflected adversely on fitness to practice | Parties agreed to dismiss the 8.4(h) charge as part of the settlement | Court dismissed the Prof.Cond.R. 8.4(h) allegation per the parties’ agreement |
| Appropriate sanction for the misconduct | Disciplinary Counsel recommended a stayed six-month suspension (citing precedent) | Hubbell agreed to a six-month suspension, stayed on condition of no further misconduct | Court imposed a six-month suspension, fully stayed on condition of no further misconduct |
| Whether mitigating/aggravating factors justify the agreed sanction | Mitigation: no prior record, cooperation, acceptance, good character; Aggravation: vulnerable client weight supports sanction | Parties agreed that the listed factors support the stipulated stayed suspension | Court accepted the parties’ mitigation/aggravation balancing and adopted the sanction |
Key Cases Cited
- Toledo Bar Assn. v. Burkholder, 109 Ohio St.3d 443, 848 N.E.2d 840 (2006) (imposed a stayed six-month suspension for an attorney who made improper sexual advances toward a client)
- Disciplinary Counsel v. Hines, 133 Ohio St.3d 166, 977 N.E.2d 575 (2012) (imposed a stayed six-month suspension for an attorney who engaged in an inappropriate sexual relationship with a client)