Case Title: Disciplinary Counsel v. Hubbell

Citation: 2015-Ohio-3426

Docket Number: 2015-0592

State: ohio

Court: Ohio Supreme Court

Date: 2015-08-27T00:00:00Z

Document:
[Until this opinion appears in the Ohio Official Reports advance sheets, it may be cited as 
Disciplinary Counsel v. Hubbell, Slip Opinion No. 2015-Ohio-3426.] 
 
 
 
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. 2015-OHIO-3426 
DISCIPLINARY COUNSEL v. HUBBELL. 
[Until this opinion appears in the Ohio Official Reports advance sheets, it 
may be cited as Disciplinary Counsel v. Hubbell, Slip Opinion  
No. 2015-Ohio-3426.] 
Attorneys at law—Misconduct—Soliciting sexual activity with a client—Six-month 
suspension, stayed on the condition that respondent commit no further 
misconduct. 
(No. 2015-0592—Submitted May 6, 2015—Decided August 27, 2015.) 
ON CERTIFIED REPORT by the Board of Professional Conduct of the Supreme 
Court, No. 2014-099. 
_______________________ 
Per Curiam. 
{¶ 1} Respondent, Bradley Francis Hubbell of Toledo, Ohio, Attorney 
Registration No. 0075674, was admitted to the practice of law in Ohio in 2002.  
On November 26, 2014, relator, disciplinary counsel, filed a complaint alleging 
that Hubbell had attempted to initiate a romantic relationship with a client he was 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO 
 
2
representing pro bono in a custody dispute.  Relator charged Hubbell with 
violating Prof.Cond.R. 1.8(j) and 8.4(h). 
{¶ 2} A panel of the Board of Professional Conduct considered the cause 
on the parties’ consent-to-discipline agreement.  See Gov.Bar R. V(16). 
{¶ 3} In the consent-to-discipline agreement, Hubbell stipulates to the 
facts alleged in relator’s complaint and agrees that his conduct violated 
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 between them 
prior to the initiation of the client-lawyer relationship).  The parties agree to the 
dismissal of the alleged 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). 
{¶ 4} The parties agree that the applicable mitigating factors include the 
absence of a prior disciplinary record, Hubbell’s cooperative attitude toward the 
disciplinary proceedings and acceptance of responsibility for his misconduct, and 
his good character and reputation.  See Gov.Bar R. V(13)(C)(1), (4), and (5).  The 
parties stipulate that the fact that this matter involved a vulnerable client is an 
aggravating factor.  Based upon Hubbell’s stipulated misconduct and these 
factors, the parties stipulate that the appropriate sanction is a six-month 
suspension from the practice of law, with the entire suspension stayed on the 
condition that Hubbell commit no further misconduct. 
{¶ 5} The panel and the board found that the consent-to-discipline 
agreement conforms to Gov.Bar R. V(16) and recommend that we adopt the 
agreement in its entirety.  The panel considered several disciplinary cases, 
including Toledo Bar Assn. v. Burkholder, 109 Ohio St.3d 443, 2006-Ohio-2817, 
848 N.E.2d 840 (imposing a stayed six-month suspension on an attorney who 
made improper sexual advances toward a client) and Disciplinary Counsel v. 
Hines, 133 Ohio St.3d 166, 2012-Ohio-3929, 977 N.E.2d 575 (imposing a stayed 
January Term, 2015 
 
3
six-month suspension on an attorney who engaged in an inappropriate sexual 
relationship with a client). 
{¶ 6} We agree that Hubbell violated Prof.Cond.R. 1.8(j) and, as stated in 
the parties’ agreement and as indicated by the cited precedent, that this conduct 
warrants a stayed six-month suspension from the practice of law.  Therefore, we 
adopt the parties’ consent-to-discipline agreement and dismiss the alleged 
violation of Prof.Cond.R. 8.4(h). 
{¶ 7} Accordingly, Bradley Francis Hubbell is hereby suspended from the 
practice of law for a period of six months, with the entire suspension stayed on the 
condition that Hubbell commit no further misconduct.  If Hubbell fails to comply 
with the condition of the stay, the stay will be lifted, and Hubbell will serve the 
entire six-month suspension.  Costs are taxed to Hubbell. 
Judgment accordingly. 
O’CONNOR, C.J., and PFEIFER, O’DONNELL, LANZINGER, KENNEDY, 
FRENCH, and O’NEILL, JJ., concur. 
__________________ 
Scott J. Drexel, Disciplinary Counsel, and Donald M. Scheetz, Assistant 
Disciplinary Counsel, for relator. 
Jonathan B. Cherry, for respondent. 
______________________