Disciplinary Counsel v. Siewert
130 Ohio St. 3d 402
| Ohio | 2011Background
- Siewert is an Ohio attorney admitted in 1984; previously suspended in 1988 for multiple misconducts.
- In 2009, Caldwell retained Siewert for divorce, domestic-violence charges, and civil-protection-order matters.
- Siewert began a romantic/sexual relationship with Caldwell by late 2009 and she moved into his home.
- The relationship persisted into December 2009; Caldwell’s last matter was journalized December 16, 2009, and the relationship ended February 2010 after her relapse.
- In February 2011, Disciplinary Counsel charged Siewert with professional-conduct violations; the parties entered a consent-to-discipline agreement.
- The consent proposed a six-month stayed suspension as the appropriate sanction, given the misconduct and his mitigating factors.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether a sexual relationship with a client violated ethics rules | Siewert violated Prof.Cond.R. 1.7, 1.8(j), and related provisions due to personal interests harming client representation. | No substantial prejudice to Caldwell’s interests occurred; relationship did not undermine representation as contemplated by the rules. | Yes; the relationships violated 1.7(a)(2), 1.8(j), 8.4(d), and 8.4(h). |
| Appropriate sanction for the misconduct | Discipline should reflect prior disciplinary history and misconduct; suspension is warranted. | Consent-to-discipline agreement supports a limited sanction; a six-month stayed suspension is appropriate. | Six-month stayed suspension with no further misconduct; costs taxed. |
| Impact of mitigating and aggravating factors on sanction | Prior discipline is aggravating; poor judgment justified stricter sanction. | Mitigating factors (no dishonest motive, cooperation, good reputation, treatment) lessen culpability. | Aggravation from prior discipline; mitigations present; sanction stayed. |
Key Cases Cited
- Disciplinary Counsel v. DePietro, 71 Ohio St.3d 391 (1994) (sexual relationship with client cases cited in disciplinary context)
- Disciplinary Counsel v. Paxton, 66 Ohio St.3d 163 (1993) (disciplinary guidance on attorney-client relationships)
- Disciplinary Counsel v. Ressing, 53 Ohio St.3d 265 (1990) (principles for evaluating attorney conduct and sanctions)
- Cuyahoga Cty. Bar Assn. v. Siewert, 40 Ohio St.3d 172 (1988) (prior discipline for neglect and misconduct informing later sanction)