Case Title: Disciplinary Counsel v. Skolnick

Citation: 2018-Ohio-2990

Docket Number: 

State: ohio

Court: Ohio Supreme Court

Date: 2018-08-01T00:00:00Z

Document:
[Until this opinion appears in the Ohio Official Reports advance sheets, it may be cited as 
Disciplinary Counsel v. Skolnick, Slip Opinion No. 2018-Ohio-2990.] 
 
 
 
NOTICE 
This slip opinion is subject to formal revision before it is published in an 
advance sheet of the Ohio Official Reports.  Readers are requested to 
promptly notify the Reporter of Decisions, Supreme Court of Ohio, 65 
South Front Street, Columbus, Ohio 43215, of any typographical or other 
formal errors in the opinion, in order that corrections may be made before 
the opinion is published. 
 
 
SLIP OPINION NO. 2018-OHIO-2990 
DISCIPLINARY COUNSEL v. SKOLNICK. 
[Until this opinion appears in the Ohio Official Reports advance sheets, it 
may be cited as Disciplinary Counsel v. Skolnick, Slip Opinion No.  
2018-Ohio-2990.] 
Attorneys—Misconduct—Violations of the Rules of Professional Conduct—One-
year license suspension with six months of the suspension stayed on 
condition. 
(No. 2017-1735—Submitted January 24, 2018—Decided August 1, 2018.) 
ON CERTIFIED REPORT by the Board of Professional Conduct of the Supreme 
Court, No. 2017-027. 
__________________ 
Per Curiam. 
{¶ 1} Respondent, Howard Evan Skolnick, of Cleveland, Ohio, Attorney 
Registration No. 0061905, was admitted to the practice of law in Ohio in 1993. 
{¶ 2} In a formal complaint filed with the Board of Professional Conduct 
on May 22, 2017, relator, disciplinary counsel, charged Skolnick with a single 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO 
 
2
violation of Prof.Cond.R. 8.4(h) (prohibiting a lawyer from engaging in conduct 
that adversely reflects on the lawyer’s fitness to practice law) for verbally harassing 
his paralegal for more than two years.  Based on the parties’ stipulations and 
Skolnick’s hearing testimony, the board found that Skolnick had engaged in the 
charged misconduct and recommended that he be suspended from the practice of 
law for six months, with the entire suspension stayed on the condition that he 
engage in no further misconduct.  No objections have been filed. 
{¶ 3} Having review the record, we adopt the board’s findings of fact and 
misconduct.  Given the longstanding and pervasive nature of Skolnick’s degrading 
verbal attacks against his paralegal, however, we find that a one-year suspension, 
with six months stayed on the condition that he engage in no further misconduct, is 
the appropriate sanction for that misconduct. 
Misconduct 
{¶ 4} Almost immediately after L.D. began working as a paralegal at 
Skolnick’s law firm in August 2011, Skolnick began criticizing and verbally 
harassing her.  He hurled insults and called her stupid, dumb, fat, “whorey,” and 
bitch.  Skolnick also called L.D.’s husband a “douche bag” and made fun of her 
mother, though he had never met her.  Uncomfortable with Skolnik’s behavior, 
L.D. soon began looking for a new job.  As she could not afford to leave the firm 
until she had secured new employment, she responded to over 100 employment 
advertisements, but her job search was unsuccessful. 
{¶ 5} Skolnick’s verbal insults and harassment continued throughout L.D.’s 
nearly two-and-a-half-year tenure with the firm.  At some point, L.D. began 
recording those interactions.  These recordings reveal that on one occasion, 
Skolnick told L.D. that he would put her next to his office so that he could “watch 
every move that [her] despicable ass makes.”  During that conversation, he also told 
her that he had been losing weight because seeing her made him nauseous.  Another 
time, L.D. left a meeting upset and humiliated because Skolnick had used foul 
January Term, 2018 
 
3
language in front of attorneys to criticize her level of education.  And in the spring 
of 2012, Skolnick sexually harassed L.D.  While Skolnick drove L.D. and another 
female employee to lunch, he remarked that the two women should give him “road 
head” so that he could rate their performances on a scale from one to ten.  Skolnick 
also falsely told an African American client that L.D. did not like black people, a 
remark that upset L.D. and forced her to defend herself in front of the client. 
{¶ 6} As a result of Skolnick’s harassment, L.D. suffered from anxiety, 
sleep disturbances, depression, and poor body image.  Those symptoms persisted 
even after she left the firm to take a new job in January 2014.  A clinical 
psychologist who evaluated L.D. the following October reported that her symptoms 
meet some of the criteria for a diagnosis of posttraumatic stress disorder. 
{¶ 7} Skolnick stipulated and the board found that his conduct adversely 
reflected upon his fitness to practice law in violation of Prof.Cond.R. 8.4(h).  We 
accept these findings of fact and agree that Skolnick’s pervasive pattern of verbally 
harassing and abusing his paralegal falls within this catchall provision.  See 
Disciplinary Counsel v. Bricker, 137 Ohio St.3d 35, 2013-Ohio-3998, 997 N.E2d 
500, ¶ 21. 
 
Sanction 
{¶ 8} When imposing sanctions for attorney misconduct, we consider 
several relevant factors, including the ethical duties that the lawyer violated, the 
aggravating and mitigating factors listed in Gov.Bar R. V(13), and the sanctions 
imposed in similar cases. 
{¶ 9} The parties stipulated and the board found two aggravating factors: 
Skolnick engaged in a pattern of misconduct and caused harm to a vulnerable 
employee.  See Gov.Bar R. V(13)(B)(3), (8).  As mitigating factors, the board found 
that Skolnick did not have a prior disciplinary record, presented evidence of his 
good character, cooperated in the disciplinary process, acknowledged his 
misconduct, and expressed remorse for his behavior.  See Gov.Bar R. V(13)(C)(1), 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO 
 
4
(4), (5).  Although Skolnick presented some evidence that he had been diagnosed 
with and was being treated for cyclothymic disorder and exhibited traits of 
obsessive-compulsive personality disorder, the board declined to afford mitigating 
effect to those conditions because Skolnick did not present any evidence that they 
were causally related to his misconduct as required by Gov.Bar R. V(13)(C)(7).1   
{¶ 10} Skolnick testified that after receiving a letter from L.D.’s counsel 
accusing him of sexual harassment, discrimination, and creating a hostile work 
environment, he agreed to mediate those claims.  He never denied L.D.’s 
allegations and quickly settled her claims for $300,000—the limits of his insurance 
coverage—to avoid causing her any additional trauma.  Skolnick also testified that 
he hired a human-resource specialist to revise the firm’s employee handbook and 
to provide sexual-harassment training to himself and his staff.  He delegated some 
of his management duties to other attorneys in the firm, reduced his office hours, 
and started performing some of his work remotely.  It is not clear, however, that the 
board attributed any mitigating effect to these facts. 
{¶ 11} Based on Skolnick’s verbal and sexual harassment and the harm it 
caused to L.D., the board recommends that we suspend him from the practice of 
law for six months, with the entire suspension stayed on the condition that he 
commit no further misconduct.  In support of that sanction, the board considered 
two cases in which we imposed fully or partially stayed suspensions on attorneys 
who had engaged in inappropriate communications with staff.  In Columbus Bar 
Assn. v. Baker, 72 Ohio St.3d 21, 647 N.E.2d 152 (1995), we suspended an attorney 
for six months, with the entire suspension stayed on conditions, for using 
inappropriate, vulgar, sexually explicit, and sexually suggestive language in the 
                                                 
1 Gov.Bar R. V(13)(C)(7) provides that a mental-health disorder qualifies as a mitigating factor 
when all the following factors exist: a diagnosis of a disorder by a qualified healthcare professional, 
a determination that the disorder contributed to the respondent’s misconduct, a sustained period of 
successful treatment, and a prognosis from a qualified healthcare professional that the attorney will 
be able to return to the competent, ethical practice of law under specified conditions. 
January Term, 2018 
 
5
presence of a 17-year-old student who worked in his office.  And in Lake Cty. Bar 
Assn. v. Mismas, 139 Ohio St.3d 346, 2014-Ohio-2483, 11 N.E.3d 346, we imposed 
a one-year license suspension, with six months of it conditionally stayed, on an 
attorney who had sent inappropriate text messages to a student law clerk in which 
he suggested that she perform sexual favors for him, indicated that her employment 
was conditioned on her compliance with his demands, and repeatedly insisted that 
he was not joking.  The board also noted that in Akron Bar Assn. v. Miller, 130 
Ohio St.3d 1, 2011-Ohio-4412, 955 N.E.2d 359, we imposed a fully stayed six-
month suspension on an attorney who had made inappropriate and unprofessional 
statements of a sexual nature to a client in a single telephone call. 
{¶ 12} Unlike in Baker, Mismas, and Miller, the target of the attorney’s 
inappropriate communications was not a young student or a client.  But he directed 
frequent profanity-laced verbal tirades toward and sexually harassed a vulnerable 
employee who needed her job to support her family.  During L.D.’s two-and a-half-
year tenure, Skolnick berated her for her physical appearance, dress, education, and 
parenting skills.  He called her a bitch, a “hoe”, a dirtbag, and a piece of shit, and 
he told her that he hoped she would die.  And because L.D. recorded her interactions 
with Skolnick on more than 30 occasions, we have had the opportunity to hear 
Skolnick’s outbursts for ourselves. 
{¶ 13} The only explanation that Skolnick offered for his extreme, 
obnoxious, and humiliating attacks on L.D. was that he had learned the lingo from 
rappers and hip-hop artists while practicing entertainment law and that he believed 
he was using the phrases in more of a humorous than a harmful way. 
{¶ 14} In light of the longstanding and pervasive nature of Skolnick’s 
degrading verbal attacks against his paralegal, we believe that a sanction greater 
than the stayed six-month suspension recommended by the board is necessary not 
only to protect the public and the dignity of the legal system but also to deter future 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO 
 
6
misconduct of this nature by Skolnick and other attorneys licensed to practice law 
in this state. 
{¶ 15} Accordingly, Howard Evan Skolnick is suspended from the practice 
of law in Ohio for one year, with the final six months of the suspension stayed on 
the condition that he engage in no further misconduct.  If Skolnick fails to comply 
with the condition of the stay, the stay will be lifted, and he will serve the full one-
year suspension.  Costs are taxed to Skolnick. 
Judgment accordingly. 
O’CONNOR, C.J., and O’DONNELL, KENNEDY, FISCHER, and DEWINE, JJ., 
concur. 
FRENCH, J., dissents. 
DEGENARO, J., not participating. 
_________________ 
Scott J. Drexel, Disciplinary Counsel, and Catherine M. Russo, Assistant 
Disciplinary Counsel, for relator. 
Coughlan Law Firm L.L.C. and Jonathan E. Coughlan, for respondent. 
_________________