2022 Ohio 2190
Ohio2022Background
- Michael A. Noble, admitted 2012, represented a divorcing client (Doe) beginning Sept. 2018; within weeks they began a sexual relationship that continued nearly two years.
- Noble repeatedly denied the relationship to opposing counsel and others during the divorce representation, then withdrew in Jan. 2019 and transferred the retainer; the divorce finalized in Aug. 2019.
- In 2020 Noble sought to conceal the relationship while campaigning and reconciling with his ex‑wife; he lied to a police chief and others, falsely claimed to possess a recording, and filed complaints that triggered an internal investigation of D.P., the client’s ex‑husband (a police officer).
- Noble’s criminal charges arising from the complaints were dismissed; at a later sealing hearing he equivocated but ultimately admitted he had lied to a public official.
- The Board found violations of Prof.Cond.R. 1.8(j), 4.1(a), 3.3(a), 8.4(c), and 8.4(h); parties stipulated facts and recommended a one‑year suspension with six months stayed on conditions.
- The Supreme Court adopted the board’s findings and imposed a one‑year suspension with six months stayed provided Noble commit no further misconduct and continue mental‑health counseling; costs taxed to Noble.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Did Noble violate Prof.Cond.R. 1.8(j) by engaging in sexual activity with a client without a preexisting consensual sexual relationship? | Noble had a sexual relationship with his client that began after representation commenced, so 1.8(j) was violated. | Noble did not dispute the relationship but emphasized lack of prior disciplinary record and context. | Held: Violation of Prof.Cond.R. 1.8(j) proven. |
| Did Noble knowingly make false statements in the course of representation (Prof.Cond.R. 4.1(a)) to opposing counsel and others? | Noble lied to opposing counsel about the affair to conceal misconduct. | Noble acknowledged poor choices and remorse; no attempt to mislead relator during investigation. | Held: Violation of Prof.Cond.R. 4.1(a) proven. |
| Did Noble make false statements to law‑enforcement and a tribunal (Prof.Cond.R. 3.3(a), 8.4(c), 8.4(h))? | Noble lied to a police chief, falsely claimed a recording, filed complaints that prompted an investigation, and later admitted lying at the sealing hearing. | Noble argued remorse, counseling, and cooperation mitigate misconduct. | Held: Violations of Prof.Cond.R. 3.3(a), 8.4(c), and 8.4(h) proven. |
| What sanction is appropriate? | One‑year suspension with six months stayed conditioned on counseling and no further misconduct (parties’ joint recommendation). | Noble urged mitigation: cooperation, remorse, counseling, character letters. | Held: Adopted one‑year suspension with six months stayed on stated conditions. |
Key Cases Cited
- Disciplinary Counsel v. Benbow, 153 Ohio St.3d 350 (2018) (attorney engaged in sexual relationship with client and repeatedly denied misconduct; two‑year suspension with one year stayed)
- Akron Bar Assn. v. Williams, 104 Ohio St.3d 317 (2004) (attorney had brief sexual relationship with vulnerable domestic client and denied it under oath; two‑year suspension with portion stayed)
- Disciplinary Counsel v. Leon, 155 Ohio St.3d 582 (2018) (attorney failed to file bankruptcy petition and engaged in sexual activity with client; one‑year suspension with six months stayed)
- Disciplinary Counsel v. Spinazze, 159 Ohio St.3d 187 (2020) (attorney made false statements to cover misconduct; six‑month suspension)