An Ohio lawyer crossed a border and also a line, leading to a two-year suspension and a restitution order under an opinion the state supreme court handed down this week. The suspension was based on ethics violations as to numerous clients, but one involved the prohibitions against unauthorized practice and sexual activity with clients. The
Model Rule 1.8(j)
Sex with client draws suspension; consent plays no part in analysis, Ohio court again says
By Karen Rubin on
Posted in How Not to Practice
The Ohio Supreme Court is continuing its trend of suspending lawyers who violate the disciplinary rule on sex with clients, and has again rejected arguments that pointed to the consensual nature of the relationship. In a recent opinion involving sex between criminal defense counsel and his client, the court characterized the lower disciplinary Board’s analysis…
“Sex addiction” not a mitigating factor in discipline: Ohio court
By Karen Rubin on
Posted in How Not to Practice
A divided Ohio Supreme Court last week suspended a lawyer for two years, with six months stayed, based on his sexual relationships with four clients.
Ohio’s Rule 1.8(j), like Model Rule 1.8(j),bars sex with clients unless a consensual sexual relationship pre-existed the client relationship. (The Ohio rule extends to soliciting or engaging…