Summary
finding that a lawyer engaging in a consenting romantic relationship with client while representing client violates disciplinary rules warranting public reprimand
Summary of this case from Doe v. Roe (In re Roe)Opinion
No. 92-2527
Submitted February 2, 1993 —
Decided April 28, 1993.
ON CERTIFIED REPORT by the Board of Commissioners on Grievances and Discipline of the Supreme Court, No. 91-48.
On December 9, 1991, Office of Disciplinary Counsel, relator, filed a complaint with the Board of Commissioners on Grievances and Discipline of the Supreme Court ("board") against Robert C. Paxton II of Columbus, Ohio, Attorney Registration No. 0003859, respondent. Relator charged respondent with violating DR 1-102(A)(6) (engaging in conduct adversely reflecting on fitness to practice law) and 5-101(A) (professional judgment reasonably affected by own personal and financial interests).
In April 1986, respondent commenced representing Nancy S. Blodgett in her divorce action. The marital assets exceeded several million dollars.
During the representation, respondent and Blodgett engaged in a consenting, romantic relationship. Nevertheless, respondent continued to represent Blodgett, and, after their relationship ended, Blodgett disputed respondent's fee. Respondent admits his personal and financial interest may have affected his professional judgment in violation of DR 5-101(A).
Relator recommended that we publicly reprimand respondent, and respondent accepts this recommendation. Respondent, moreover, waived hearing in this matter.
A panel of the board found that respondent violated DR 5-101(A) and recommended a public reprimand. The board adopted the findings of fact, conclusions of law, and recommendation of the panel.
J. Warren Bettis, Disciplinary Counsel, and Dianna L. Chesley, Assistant Disciplinary Counsel, for relator.
Squire, Sanders Dempsey, David J. Young and John R. Gall; and Mark H. Aultman, for respondent.
After reading the testimonial letters submitted by respondent, we agree with the findings and recommendation of the board. We hereby publicly reprimand respondent and tax costs to him.
Judgment accordingly.
MOYER, C.J., A.W. SWEENEY, DOUGLAS, WRIGHT, RESNICK, F.E. SWEENEY and PFEIFER, JJ., concur.