2018 Ohio 2990
Ohio2018Background
- Howard E. Skolnick, an Ohio attorney admitted in 1993, was accused of verbally and sexually harassing a paralegal (L.D.) over ~2.5 years beginning in 2011.
- Harassment included insults about her appearance and intelligence, sexual comments (including a comment about "road head"), derogatory remarks about her family, and false statements to a client.
- L.D. recorded over 30 interactions; recordings corroborated frequent profanity-laced tirades and sexualized remarks.
- L.D. suffered anxiety, sleep disturbance, depression, and symptoms meeting some criteria for PTSD; she eventually left for new employment.
- Disciplinary Counsel charged Skolnick with violating Prof.Cond.R. 8.4(h) (conduct adversely reflecting on fitness to practice). The Board found misconduct and recommended a six-month suspension, stayed in full on condition of no further misconduct.
- The Supreme Court adopted the findings but imposed a one-year suspension, with the final six months stayed on condition of no further misconduct; costs taxed to Skolnick.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Skolnick's conduct violated Prof.Cond.R. 8.4(h) | Skolnick's pervasive verbal and sexual harassment reflected adversely on his fitness | Conduct was not denied; mitigation offered (character, treatment, training) | Yes — board findings adopted; violation proven |
| Appropriate sanction for pervasive harassment of an employee | Suspension needed to protect public and deter similar conduct | Requested mitigation: no prior discipline, cooperation, remorse, settlement, training | One-year suspension with six months stayed on condition of no further misconduct |
| Mitigating effect of mental-health evidence | Not asserted by relator | Skolnick presented diagnoses and treatment but no causal link to misconduct | No mitigating credit because causal relation not shown per Gov.Bar R. V(13)(C)(7) |
| Weight of comparable precedents in sanctioning | Relator relied on prior stayed suspensions and partial suspensions | Defense argued comparators supported a fully stayed six-month suspension | Court found precedents relevant but distinguished facts (duration/target) and imposed harsher sanction |
Key Cases Cited
- Disciplinary Counsel v. Bricker, 137 Ohio St.3d 35, 997 N.E.2d 500 (2013) (defining conduct that reflects adversely on fitness to practice)
- Columbus Bar Assn. v. Baker, 72 Ohio St.3d 21, 647 N.E.2d 152 (1995) (six-month suspension, stayed on conditions, for vulgar sexually explicit language in office)
- Lake Cty. Bar Assn. v. Mismas, 139 Ohio St.3d 346, 11 N.E.3d 346 (2014) (one-year suspension with six months stayed for sexually suggestive messages to a law clerk)
- Akron Bar Assn. v. Miller, 130 Ohio St.3d 1, 955 N.E.2d 359 (2011) (fully stayed six-month suspension for inappropriate sexual statements to a client)