Case Title: Allen Cty. Bar Assn. v. Bartels

Citation: 2010-Ohio-1046

Docket Number: 20092238

State: ohio

Court: Ohio Supreme Court

Date: 2010-03-25T00:00:00Z

Document:
[Until this opinion appears in the Ohio Official Reports advance sheets, it may be cited as 
Allen Cty. Bar Assn. v. Bartels, Slip Opinion No. 2010-Ohio-1046.] 
 
 
 
 
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. 2010-OHIO-1046 
ALLEN COUNTY BAR ASSOCIATION v. BARTELS. 
[Until this opinion appears in the Ohio Official Reports advance sheets, it 
may be cited as Allen Cty. Bar Assn. v. Bartels,  
Slip Opinion No. 2010-Ohio-1046.] 
Attorneys at law — Misconduct — Sexual activity with a client — Consent-to-
discipline agreement — Public reprimand. 
(No. 2009-2238 — Submitted January 13, 2010 — Decided March 25, 2010.) 
ON CERTIFIED REPORT by the Board of Commissioners on Grievances and 
Discipline of the Supreme Court, No. 09-053. 
__________________ 
 
Per Curiam. 
{¶ 1} Respondent, N. Shannon Bartels of Lima, Ohio, Attorney 
Registration No. 0064012, was admitted to the practice of law in Ohio in 1994.  
The Board of Commissioners on Grievances and Discipline recommends that we 
publicly reprimand respondent based on its finding that she engaged in sexual 
activity with a client.  We accept the board’s finding of misconduct and the 
recommendation of a public reprimand. 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO 
2 
 
{¶ 2} Relator, Allen County Bar Association, filed a complaint charging 
respondent with violating several Rules of Professional Conduct, including 
Prof.Cond.R. 1.8(j) (prohibiting a lawyer from soliciting or engaging in sexual 
activity with a client unless a consensual sexual relationship existed before the 
representation commenced).  After respondent initially submitted an answer 
denying that she had committed any misconduct, the parties entered into a 
consent-to-discipline agreement, filed pursuant to Rule 11 of the Rules and 
Regulations Governing Procedure on Complaints and Hearings Before the Board 
of Commissioners on Grievances and Discipline (“BCGD Proc.Reg.”), in which 
they stipulated to facts and misconduct and proposed a public reprimand.  The 
board accepted the agreement and recommends a public reprimand. 
Misconduct 
{¶ 3} The parties stipulated that in February 2009, a client retained 
respondent as his attorney for a postdivorce matter involving custody and 
visitation.  Prior to respondent’s representation of the client, there had been no 
sexual or romantic relationship between them. 
{¶ 4} Respondent met with both the client and the client’s wife and 
attended court conferences on their behalf.  After meeting with both the client and 
his wife, respondent attended a hearing that resulted in the settlement of the case.  
Respondent reviewed a proposed judgment entry resolving the case and faxed it to 
her client for his review.  On May 22, 2008, the judgment entry was submitted to, 
and signed by, the court. 
{¶ 5} On the same day that the judgment was entered, respondent met 
with the client and engaged in sexual activity with him.  Respondent thereafter 
sent a letter to her client with the judgment entry and bill and faxed a copy of the 
entry modifying custody and visitation to the county child support enforcement 
agency.  Respondent’s sexual relationship with her client continued until 
September 1, 2008. 
January Term, 2010 
3 
 
{¶ 6} On September 22, 2008, respondent received a letter from an 
attorney notifying her of problems regarding visitation, custody, and the payment 
of medical bills for her client’s minor child.  Respondent forwarded the letter to 
her client.  In late September 2008, after she was confronted by her client’s wife 
about the affair, respondent admitted that she had engaged in sexual activity with 
her client.  The client’s wife thereafter filed a grievance against respondent. 
{¶ 7} Respondent admitted that her conduct violated Prof.Cond.R. 1.8(j), 
and relator withdrew its charges of other ethical violations.  We accept 
respondent’s admissions. 
Sanction 
{¶ 8} Comment 17 to Prof.Cond.R. 1.8 explains the rationale for the 
prohibition in subsection 1.8(j) against a lawyer having sexual activity with a 
client: 
{¶ 9} “The relationship between lawyer and client is a fiduciary one in 
which the lawyer occupies the highest position of trust and confidence.  The 
relationship is almost always unequal; thus, a sexual relationship between lawyer 
and client can involve unfair exploitation of the lawyer’s fiduciary role, in 
violation of the lawyer’s basic ethical obligation not to use the trust of the client 
to the client’s disadvantage.  In addition, such a relationship presents a significant 
danger that, because of the lawyer’s emotional involvement, the lawyer will be 
unable to represent the client without impairment of the exercise of independent 
professional judgment.  Moreover, a blurred line between the professional and 
personal relationships may make it difficult to predict to what extent client 
confidences will be protected by the attorney-client evidentiary privilege, since 
client confidences are protected by privilege only when they are imparted in the 
context of the client-lawyer relationship.  Because of the significant danger of 
harm to client interests and because the client’s own emotional involvement 
renders it unlikely that the client could give adequate informed consent, this rule 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO 
4 
 
prohibits the lawyer from engaging in sexual activity with a client regardless of 
whether the relationship is consensual and regardless of the absence of prejudice 
to the client, unless the sexual relationship predates the client-lawyer relationship.  
A lawyer is also prohibited from soliciting a sexual relationship with a client.” 
{¶ 10} In Cincinnati Bar Assn. v. Schmalz, 123 Ohio St.3d 130, 2009-
Ohio-4159, 914 N.E.2d 1024, we considered our precedent in disciplinary cases 
involving sexual activity between lawyers and their clients in determining the 
appropriate sanction.  We first noted that we have imposed harsher sanctions 
when the sexual relationship either “formed part of a larger pattern of 
misconduct” or was “linked with other disciplinary violations or an actual adverse 
impact on the quality of the legal representation.”  Id. at ¶ 8, citing Disciplinary 
Counsel v. Sturgeon, 111 Ohio St.3d 285, 2006-Ohio-5708, 855 N.E.2d 1221, ¶ 
18, 29-30 (disbarment), and Disciplinary Counsel v. Krieger, 108 Ohio St.3d 319, 
2006-Ohio-1062, 843 N.E.2d 765, ¶ 29-30 (suspension). 
{¶ 11} In Schmalz, however, at ¶ 9, we held that a public reprimand was 
warranted for the attorney’s violation of Prof.Cond.R. 1.8(j) and other Rules of 
Professional Conduct because “in spite of the improprieties, respondent 
effectively performed her function as an attorney in the criminal representation 
and * * * a public reprimand for the stated violations will adequately deter her 
from future violations.” 
{¶ 12} Similarly, respondent’s isolated violation of Prof.Cond.R. 1.8(j) in 
an otherwise unblemished legal career had no adverse impact upon her 
representation of the client and was not part of a larger pattern of ethical 
misconduct.  In addition, the parties’ stipulation identified the presence of several 
mitigating factors, including respondent’s lack of a prior disciplinary record, 
absence of a dishonest or selfish motive, cooperative attitude toward the 
disciplinary proceedings, and positive character evidence.  BCGD Proc.Reg. 
10(B)(2)(a), (b), (d), and (e).  Therefore, the recommended sanction is 
January Term, 2010 
5 
 
commensurate with respondent’s misconduct.  Respondent is hereby publicly 
reprimanded.  Costs are taxed to respondent. 
Judgment accordingly. 
 
MOYER, 
C.J., 
and 
PFEIFER, 
LUNDBERG 
STRATTON, 
O’CONNOR, 
O’DONNELL, LANZINGER, and CUPP, JJ., concur. 
__________________ 
 
Baran, Piper, Tarkowsky, Fitzgerald & Theis Co., L.P.A., and Robert B. 
Fitzgerald, for relator. 
Kettlewell & Donchatz, L.L.C., and Charles J. Kettlewell, for respondent. 
______________________