Case Title: Ohio State Bar Assn. v. Jacob

Citation: 2017-Ohio-2733

Docket Number: 

State: ohio

Court: Ohio Supreme Court

Date: 2017-05-10T00:00:00Z

Document:
[Until this opinion appears in the Ohio Official Reports advance sheets, it may be cited as Ohio 
State Bar Assn. v. Jacob, Slip Opinion No. 2017-Ohio-2733.] 
 
 
 
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. 2017-OHIO-2733 
OHIO STATE BAR ASSOCIATION v. JACOB. 
[Until this opinion appears in the Ohio Official Reports advance sheets, it 
may be cited as Ohio State Bar Assn. v. Jacob, Slip Opinion No.  
2017-Ohio-2733.] 
Attorneys—Judges—Misconduct—Conviction of multiple misdemeanors, including 
solicitation and falsification—Two-year suspension with second year 
stayed on condition. 
(No. 2016-1488—Submitted February 8, 2017—Decided May 10, 2017.) 
ON CERTIFIED REPORT by the Board of Professional Conduct of the Supreme 
Court, No. 2015-019. 
__________________ 
Per Curiam. 
{¶ 1} Respondent, Harry Joseph Jacob III, of Solon, Ohio, Attorney 
Registration No. 0008620, was admitted to the practice of law in Ohio in 1981.  
Jacob served as a Bedford Municipal Court judge from 2010 until he resigned in 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO 
 
2
October 2014 after he was found guilty of soliciting prostitution and falsifying a 
court record. 
{¶ 2} In March 2016, relator, the Ohio State Bar Association, filed an 
amended complaint against Jacob charging him with judicial and professional 
misconduct for the activities that led to his criminal convictions.  Jacob stipulated 
to most, but not all, of the allegations against him, and the matter proceeded to a 
hearing before a three-member panel of the Board of Professional Conduct.  The 
board issued a report finding that Jacob engaged in the charged misconduct and 
recommending that we sanction him with a two-year suspension, with the second 
year stayed.  Neither party has objected to the board’s report and recommendation. 
{¶ 3} Based upon our review of the record, we accept the board’s findings 
of misconduct and agree with its recommended sanction. 
Misconduct 
{¶ 4} In April 2014, a Cuyahoga County grand jury indicted Jacob—while 
he was serving as a municipal court judge—on 21 counts of criminal conduct, 
ranging from felony tampering-with-evidence and promoting-prostitution charges 
to misdemeanor solicitation and falsification offenses.  In September 2014, after a 
five-day bench trial, the Cuyahoga County Court of Common Pleas found him 
guilty of five misdemeanors:  three counts of solicitation under R.C. 2907.24(A)(1), 
one count of falsification under R.C. 2921.13(A)(11), and one count of falsification 
under R.C. 2921.13(A)(13).  As to the remaining charges, the court either acquitted 
Jacob or ordered the charges dismissed.  After his convictions but before appearing 
for his sentencing, Jacob resigned from the bench.  In October 2014, the court 
sentenced him to serve a total of 60 days in jail, pay $2,500 in fines, complete a 
two-year term of probation, and submit to six months of home monitoring upon his 
release from jail.  He immediately served his jail time, paid his fine, and later 
successfully completed probation and home monitoring. 
January Term, 2017 
 
3
{¶ 5} In November 2015, the Eighth District Court of Appeals affirmed 
Jacob’s convictions.  See State v. Jacob, 2015-Ohio-4760, 50 N.E.3d 279 (8th Dist.)  
The court found that there was “sufficient and substantial evidence that Jacob 
solicited at least three women to engage in sexual activity for hire.”  Id. at ¶ 20.  In 
describing the evidence against Jacob, the court noted that he had first responded 
to an advertisement in which a woman offered massages, but after they met in 
person, the massages evolved into sex for money.  Jacob continued to request the 
woman’s services and met her at various hotels across the state.  He later engaged 
in three-way sexual acts with the woman and a second prostitute, asked the second 
prostitute to engage in individual sexual acts with him, and also solicited 
prostitution services from a third woman.  Id. at ¶ 3-5. 
{¶ 6} The Eighth District also described the evidence supporting Jacob’s 
falsification convictions, which arose from an unrelated case pending on his 
municipal court docket.  As explained by the court of appeals, a defendant, David 
Holt, made an unscheduled appearance before Jacob and requested to plead guilty 
to a pending domestic-violence charge.  Jacob informed Holt that a domestic-
violence conviction would prevent him from owning a firearm and result in other 
collateral consequences.  Jacob then sua sponte reduced the domestic-violence 
charge to disorderly conduct and found Holt guilty of the amended charge.  Jacob 
never read Holt his rights, asked him if he had consulted with an attorney, or heard 
from the alleged victim.  Further, Jacob amended the charge without the city 
prosecutor’s presence or consent, and he signed and journalized an entry that falsely 
indicated that the prosecutor had authorized the change.  Id. at ¶ 6-10, 22-24. 
{¶ 7} In his appeal of the falsification convictions, Jacob admitted that he 
had signed an inaccurate entry but argued that he did not actually know that the 
entry was false because he had merely signed a boilerplate form.  Id. at ¶ 10, 22, 
24.  The Eighth District, however, “emphatically reject[ed] this claim,” concluding,  
 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO 
 
4
The facts establish that he was fully aware of his 
duplicitous actions and tried to hide them.  Jacob 
knew that the journal entry was false because he was 
the one who changed it; he changed the entry to make 
it appear that the prosecutor authorized the 
amendment to the original charge, and then he signed 
off on the entry.  This clearly demonstrates that he 
knowingly falsified the journal entry, not just signed 
a falsified journal entry. 
   
Id. at ¶ 23. 
{¶ 8} At his disciplinary hearing, Jacob admitted that his consorting with 
prostitutes amounted to sanctionable misconduct and that he improperly 
circumvented the judicial process by sua sponte amending the charge against Holt.  
He also took responsibility for signing the inaccurate journal entry.  Based on this 
conduct, the parties stipulated and the board agreed that Jacob violated Jud.Cond.R. 
1.2 (requiring a judge to act at all times in a manner that promotes public confidence 
in the independence, integrity, and impartiality of the judiciary and to avoid 
impropriety and the appearance of impropriety) and Prof.Cond.R. 8.4(b) 
(prohibiting a lawyer from committing an illegal act that reflects adversely on the 
lawyer’s honesty or trustworthiness), 8.4(d) (prohibiting a lawyer from engaging in 
conduct that is prejudicial to the administration of justice), and 8.4(h) (prohibiting 
a lawyer from engaging in conduct that adversely reflects on the lawyer’s fitness to 
practice law).  Consistent with our decision in Disciplinary Counsel v. Bricker, 137 
Ohio St.3d 35, 2013-Ohio-3998, 997 N.E.2d 500, the board expressly found that 
Jacob’s conduct was sufficiently egregious to constitute a separate violation of 
Prof.Cond.R. 8.4(h). 
January Term, 2017 
 
5
{¶ 9} Jacob did not stipulate, however, to relator’s charge that he had also 
violated Prof.Cond.R. 8.4(c) (prohibiting a lawyer from engaging in conduct 
involving dishonesty, fraud, deceit, or misrepresentation).  Jacob acknowledged 
that in Holt’s case, he had signed a journal entry indicating that he acted “upon 
motion of the prosecutor.”  But according to Jacob, his secretary had selected the 
wrong form from several available templates, and he had not reviewed the form 
before approving it.  Jacob testified that he therefore did not intend to give the 
impression that the prosecutor had approved amending the charge.  The board 
noted, however, that the Eighth District had “soundly rejected” this argument and 
ultimately found a Prof.Cond.R. 8.4(c) violation. 
{¶ 10} We agree with the board’s findings of misconduct. 
Sanction 
{¶ 11} When imposing sanctions for judicial and professional misconduct, 
we consider several relevant factors, including the ethical duties violated, relevant 
aggravating and mitigating factors, and the sanctions imposed in similar cases.  See 
Disciplinary Counsel v. Oldfield, 140 Ohio St.3d 123, 2014-Ohio-2963, 16 N.E.3d 
581, ¶ 17. 
Aggravating and mitigating factors 
{¶ 12} The board found the following aggravating factors:  Jacob had a 
selfish motive, i.e., sexual gratification, he engaged in a pattern of misconduct, he 
committed multiple offenses, and he refused to acknowledge the wrongful nature 
of some of his misconduct.  See Gov.Bar R. V(13)(B)(2), (3), (4), and (7). 
{¶ 13} In mitigation, the board determined that Jacob had no prior 
discipline, he made a timely and good-faith effort to rectify the consequences of his 
misconduct by resigning from his judgeship, he had a cooperative attitude toward 
the disciplinary proceedings, he demonstrated good character and reputation, he 
had already served a criminal sentence for his misconduct, and he sought other 
interim rehabilitation, including the assistance of the Ohio Lawyers Assistance 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO 
 
6
Program and a personal psychiatrist.  See Gov.Bar R. V(13)(C)(1), (3) through (6), 
and (8). 
Applicable precedent 
{¶ 14} To support its recommended sanction, the board focused on several 
cases in which we suspended judges for engaging in misconduct while acting in 
their judicial capacities, including issuing false entries or orders. 
{¶ 15} For example, the board cited Disciplinary Counsel v. Hale, 141 Ohio 
St.3d 518, 2014-Ohio-5053, 26 N.E.3d 785, in which a municipal court judge 
unilaterally dismissed a speeding ticket for his personal attorney in a journal entry 
that falsely stated that the dismissal was at the prosecutor’s request—although the 
prosecutor had not in fact consented to the dismissal.  We noted that the judge’s 
false entry and his effort to cover up that misconduct were “serious violations of 
his ethical duties as both an attorney and a judge,” and we found that as an 
aggravating factor, he had given false testimony in the course of his disciplinary 
proceeding.  Id. at ¶ 39.  But we also observed that he had an otherwise unblemished 
30-year career, his misconduct was limited to a single case, no litigants suffered 
harm as a result of his misconduct, and he took responsibility for his actions and 
resigned from the bench.  Under those circumstances, we decided that a six-month 
suspension was appropriate.  Id. at ¶ 38-40. 
{¶ 16} The board also cited Disciplinary Counsel v. Medley, 104 Ohio St.3d 
251, 2004-Ohio-6402, 819 N.E.2d 273, in which a municipal court judge engaged 
in repeated acts of misconduct in various cases pending before him.  Specifically, 
in one criminal case, the judge accepted a defendant’s guilty pleas to three charges 
in exchange for the dismissal of a fourth charge—without the presence or consent 
of the prosecutor.  In a separate matter, the judge issued ex parte orders to prevent 
a creditor from collecting on a default judgment against a local political-party 
official.  In one of those orders, the judge falsely stated that the official had 
“appeared in open court,” although the official had instead met the judge in his 
January Term, 2017 
 
7
office.  In addition, we found that the judge had implemented procedures in debt-
collection cases that were predisposed to favor plaintiff-creditors and that 
disregarded established law.  Id. at ¶ 27-37.  Significant aggravating factors 
included that we had previously disciplined the judge for judicial misconduct and 
that he had refused to acknowledge the wrongfulness of his actions.  Id. at ¶ 38. 
{¶ 17} In formulating a sanction, we noted that because the judge had 
“misrepresented facts in a journal entry * * *, an actual suspension [was] warranted 
based solely on that conduct.”  Id. at ¶ 40.  And considering Medley’s dishonesty 
combined with his other ethical violations, we suspended him for 18 months, with 
six months stayed.  Id. at ¶ 41-43. 
{¶ 18} The board also relied on Disciplinary Counsel v. Squire, 116 Ohio 
St.3d 110, 2007-Ohio-5588, 876 N.E.2d 933, in which a judge committed 40 
violations of the Code of Judicial Conduct and 12 violations of the Code of 
Professional Responsibility in several cases over a three-year period.  Her pervasive 
misconduct included issuing two entries containing false statements, ignoring clear 
legal requirements, abusing her judicial contempt power, engaging in improper ex 
parte communications and judicial investigations, and failing to recuse herself in 
cases in which she was biased.  We found that Squire’s “intemperance and complete 
disrespect for litigants and attorneys who appeared before her, coupled with her 
total failure to take responsibility for her misconduct,” mandated a two-year 
suspension, with the second year stayed.  Id. at ¶ 112. 
{¶ 19} In this case, Jacob’s in-court misconduct—i.e., his actions in Holt’s 
case—and the relevant aggravating and mitigating factors are more similar to the 
facts in Hale than to either Medley or Squire.  Jacob, however, was also convicted 
on three counts of solicitation.  “[W]e have, historically, imposed discipline for an 
attorney’s criminal conduct * * *.”  Disciplinary Counsel v. Connor, 105 Ohio St.3d 
100, 2004-Ohio-6902, 822 N.E.2d 1235, ¶ 18.  And we have also noted that 
“[m]embers of the judiciary have an even greater duty to obey the law, and the 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO 
 
8
breach of that duty has been met with the full measure of our disciplinary 
authority.”  Id. 
{¶ 20} By engaging in the criminal activity in this case, Jacob failed to 
uphold the integrity of the judiciary, and he diminished public confidence in our 
branch of government.  Considering that Jacob continued to deny making 
misrepresentations in the journal entry, the board concluded that his “egregious 
conduct, both inside and outside the courtroom,” warrants a two-year suspension, 
with one year stayed.  Based on Jacob’s ethical violations, the aggravating and 
mitigating factors, and our review of applicable precedents, we find that the board’s 
recommendation is reasonable and appropriate. 
Conclusion 
{¶ 21} For the reasons explained above, we adopt the board’s recommended 
sanction.  Harry Joseph Jacob III is hereby suspended from the practice of law for 
two years, with the second year stayed on the condition that he commit no further 
misconduct.  If Jacob fails to comply with this condition, the stay will be lifted and 
he shall serve the entire two-year suspension.  Costs are taxed to Jacob. 
 
 
Judgment accordingly. 
O’DONNELL, KENNEDY, O’NEILL, and DEWINE, JJ., concur. 
O’CONNOR, C.J., and FRENCH, J., dissent and would not stay any portion of 
the suspension. 
FISCHER, J., not participating. 
_________________ 
Plunkett Cooney and Amelia A. Bower; and Eugene P. Whetzel, Bar 
Counsel, for relator. 
Murman & Associates and Michael E. Murman, for respondent. 
_________________