Case Title: Disciplinary Counsel v. Freeman

Citation: 2005-Ohio-5142

Docket Number: 

State: ohio

Court: Ohio Supreme Court

Date: 2005-10-12T00:00:00Z

Document:
[Cite as Disciplinary Counsel v. Freeman, 106 Ohio St.3d 334, 2005-Ohio-5142.] 
 
 
DISCIPLINARY COUNSEL v. FREEMAN. 
[Cite as Disciplinary Counsel v. Freeman,  
106 Ohio St.3d 334, 2005-Ohio-5142.] 
Attorneys — Misconduct — Engaging in conduct adversely reflecting on fitness to 
practice law — Accepting employment when professional judgment will 
likely be affected by attorney’s personal interests — Six-month actual 
suspension. 
(No. 2005-0365 — Submitted April 14, 2005 — Decided October 12, 2005.) 
ON CERTIFIED REPORT by the Board of Commissioners on Grievances and 
Discipline of the Supreme Court, No. 03-112. 
__________________ 
Per Curiam. 
{¶ 1} Respondent, Thomas Herbert Freeman, of Norwalk, Ohio, 
Attorney Registration No. 0007852, was admitted to the practice of law in Ohio in 
1975. 
{¶ 2} On December 1, 2003, relator, Disciplinary Counsel, charged 
respondent with violations of the Code of Professional Responsibility.  The 
parties waived a hearing, and a panel of the Board of Commissioners on 
Grievances and Discipline considered the cause on the parties’ joint stipulations 
of fact and misconduct.  The panel made findings of fact and conclusions of law, 
which the board adopted, and a recommendation, which the board modified. 
Misconduct 
{¶ 3} Consistent with the parties’ stipulations, the board found that a 
young woman had retained respondent in February 2001 to defend her against 
serious criminal charges.  At the time of her arrest, respondent’s client was 
approximately 17 years and 11 months old.  Three days after his client’s 18th 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO 
2 
birthday and while he was still representing her, respondent paid the woman $150 
to pose for photographs in various states of undress. 
{¶ 4} In spring 2001, respondent drove his client to Medina, Ohio, for a 
scheduled court appearance.  On their way home, respondent stopped to buy three 
shirts and a bra-and-panty set for his client.  When the client asked whether she 
needed to repay him, respondent replied that the clothing was a gift. 
{¶ 5} Some time later, respondent’s client began to suspect that he had 
placed photographs of her on an internet website, and she feared that her 
boyfriend and others might see them.  Respondent had not posted any of his 
client’s pictures, but the possibility of public distribution caused his client to 
reveal the nature of their relationship to her mother.  The client’s mother called 
the police. 
{¶ 6} In June 2001, some time after their attorney-client relationship 
ended, the client surreptitiously recorded a conversation with respondent at his 
home, using a police surveillance wire.  On the recording, respondent offered his 
underage client alcohol.  He also asked her to pose naked for photographs and 
solicited her to perform sex acts in exchange for specific amounts of money. 
{¶ 7} Respondent admitted that he had taken nude photographs of his 
client during his representation.  He also conceded that his client, who had just 
turned 18, possibly feared that she could not refuse his illicit requests without 
jeopardizing her defense. 
{¶ 8} The board found evidence that respondent had violated DR 1-
102(A)(6) (barring an attorney from conduct that adversely reflects on the 
lawyer’s fitness to practice law) and 5-101(A)(1) (barring an attorney from 
accepting employment if the exercise of professional judgment on behalf of the 
client reasonably may be affected by the lawyer’s financial, business, property, or 
personal interests). 
 
January Term, 2005 
3 
Sanction 
{¶ 9} In recommending a sanction for this misconduct, the board 
reviewed the aggravating and mitigating circumstances, to which the parties also 
stipulated.  See Section 10 of the Rules and Regulations Governing Procedure on 
Complaints and Hearings Before the Board of Commissioners on Grievances and 
Discipline.  In mitigation, the board found that respondent did not have a prior 
disciplinary record and had cooperated fully in the disciplinary process.  He also 
had submitted several letters as evidence of positive character and reputation.  
The board did not specify any aggravating circumstances. 
{¶ 10} As a sanction, relator suggested that respondent receive a six-
month suspension with all six months stayed, and respondent did not object.  The 
panel made this recommendation, but the board determined that an actual 
suspension was warranted by respondent’s clear abuse of his position as an 
attorney and for importuning his young female client.  Due to the gravity of this 
misconduct, the board recommended that respondent be suspended from the 
practice of law for six months. 
Review 
{¶ 11} We agree with the board’s finding that respondent violated DR 1-
102(A)(6) and 5-101(A)(1).  We also agree with the board’s recommendation. 
{¶ 12} We have denounced the patent impropriety of similar misconduct 
before.  In Disciplinary Counsel v. Booher (1996), 75 Ohio St.3d 509, 664 N.E.2d 
522, we suspended a lawyer’s license to practice for one year because he had sex 
with his client while she was in jail.  Admonishing the bar that having sexual 
relations with a client, particularly while defending the client in a criminal case, is 
presumptively unethical, we said: 
{¶ 13} “The lawyer-client relation in a criminal matter is inherently 
unequal. The client's reliance on the ability of her counsel in a crisis situation has 
the effect of putting the lawyer in a position of dominance and the client in a 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO 
4 
position of dependence and vulnerability.  The more vulnerable the client, the 
heavier is the obligation upon the attorney not to exploit the situation for his own 
advantage. Whether a client consents to or initiates sexual activity with the 
lawyer, the burden is on the lawyer to ensure that all attorney-client dealings 
remain on a professional level.  Respondent failed to meet that burden.”  Id. at 
510, 664 N.E.2d 522. 
{¶ 14} Thus, in Akron Bar Assn. v. Williams, 104 Ohio St.3d 317, 2004-
Ohio-6588, 819 N.E.2d 677, we suspended a lawyer’s license to practice for two 
years, staying the last 18 months on conditions, because he engaged in a sexual 
relationship with a vulnerable client and lied about it under oath.  And in 
Cleveland Bar Assn. v. Feneli (1999), 86 Ohio St.3d 102, 712 N.E.2d 119, a 
lawyer’s sexual relationship with a client and proposal that she exchange sex for 
his legal fees warranted an 18-month suspension, with the final six months of the 
suspension stayed.  Moreover, when a lawyer had a sexual relationship with a 
vulnerable client in Disciplinary Counsel v. Moore, 101 Ohio St.3d 261, 2004-
Ohio-734, 804 N.E.2d 423, we conditionally stayed a one-year suspension of the 
lawyer’s license, but also placed him on probation for two years. 
{¶ 15} Respondent did not lie about his misconduct under oath as in 
Williams, but neither did he present significant mitigating evidence as in Moore.  
In Moore, the lawyer sincerely apologized for his transgressions, he was eager to 
enter therapy to ensure that his misconduct would not be repeated, and his legal 
community supported his continued practice of law for the public sector.  Indeed, 
for the unconscionable advantage he took of his client, respondent offers nothing 
in the way of contrition or promises of rehabilitation.  Moreover, of the letters 
recommending respondent’s character, none explain why the authors continue to 
hold him in such high regard despite the truth of the allegations lodged against 
him. 
January Term, 2005 
5 
{¶ 16} For these reasons, we impose an actual suspension for the public’s 
protection.  Respondent is therefore suspended from the practice of law in Ohio 
for six months.  Costs are taxed to the respondent. 
Judgment accordingly. 
 
MOYER, C.J., RESNICK, PFEIFER, LUNDBERG STRATTON, O’CONNOR and 
LANZINGER, JJ., concur. 
 
O’DONNELL, J., concurs in judgment only. 
__________________ 
 
Jonathan Coughlan, Disciplinary Counsel, and Brian E. Shinn, Assistant 
Disciplinary Counsel, for relator. 
 
Kettlewell & Kettlewell, L.L.C., Charles W. Kettlewell, and Charles J. 
Kettlewell, for respondent. 
______________________