2019 Ohio 1269
Ohio2019Background
- Thomas L. Mason, Ohio lawyer admitted 1989, was criminally charged after a 2015 sting and entered an Alford plea to misdemeanor solicitation of prostitution in Dec. 2016; other charges were dismissed.
- Mason also represented M.S. in a 2014–2015 divorce and began a sexual relationship with her during representation; they exchanged extensive sexually explicit texts and he later billed but will not attempt to collect fees.
- Disciplinary Counsel charged Mason with violations of the Rules of Professional Conduct based on (1) his criminal conviction and (2) engaging in sexual relations with a client while representing her.
- The parties stipulated to facts and misconduct and jointly proposed a one-year suspension fully stayed on conditions; the Board recommended a one-year suspension with six months stayed on conditions.
- The Board found aggravating factors (dishonest/selfish motive, multiple offenses, harm to a vulnerable client, refusal to acknowledge wrongdoing) and mitigating factors (no prior discipline, cooperation, good character, prior sanctions from criminal conviction).
- The Supreme Court adopted the Board’s findings and suspended Mason for one year, staying the final six months if he complies with OLAP evaluation/treatment and other conditions; costs taxed to Mason.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Mason’s criminal conduct (solicitation conviction) violated Prof.Cond.R. 8.4(h) | Disciplinary Counsel: conviction and conduct reflect adversely on fitness to practice and violate 8.4(h) | Mason: maintains innocence, says plea not admission of rule violation, blames others; asserts no Rule violation | Court: Violated 8.4(h); plea and record show misconduct that adversely reflects on fitness |
| Whether sexual relationship with a client violated Prof.Cond.R. 1.8(j) | Disciplinary Counsel: had sexual relationship during representation, violating 1.8(j) and reflecting adversely on fitness | Mason: (stipulated facts but minimized responsibility) | Court: Violated 1.8(j) and also 8.4(h) given egregiousness |
| Appropriate sanction for combined misconduct | Disciplinary Counsel: one-year suspension fully stayed on conditions (OLAP evaluation/treatment) | Mason/defense: agreed to one-year suspension fully stayed on conditions | Court: Suspended one year, stayed final six months on conditions (OLAP evaluation, cooperate, treatment if required); stay lifted for noncompliance |
Key Cases Cited
- Disciplinary Counsel v. Bricker, 137 Ohio St.3d 35, 997 N.E.2d 500 (2013) (conduct that adversely reflects on fitness can violate Rule 8.4(h) even if not specifically proscribed)
- Disciplinary Counsel v. Moore, 101 Ohio St.3d 261, 804 N.E.2d 423 (2004) (one-year suspension, fully stayed, for sexual misconduct with clients where mitigation significant)
- Cleveland Metro. Bar Assn. v. Sleibi, 144 Ohio St.3d 257, 42 N.E.3d 699 (2015) (two-year suspension with six months stayed for multiple sexual relationships and explicit communications with clients)
- Ohio State Bar Assn. v. Jacob, 150 Ohio St.3d 162, 80 N.E.3d 440 (2017) (two-year suspension with partial stay where attorney convicted of multiple misdemeanors including solicitation and refused to acknowledge wrongdoing)
- North Carolina v. Alford, 400 U.S. 25 (1970) (describes Alford plea: guilty plea entered without admitting guilt)