Case Title: Butler Cty. Bar Assn. v. Blauvelt

Citation: 2020-Ohio-3325

Docket Number: 2020-0226

State: ohio

Court: Ohio Supreme Court

Date: 2020-06-17T00:00:00Z

Document:
[Until this opinion appears in the Ohio Official Reports advance sheets, it may be cited as 
Butler Cty. Bar Assn. v. Blauvelt, Slip Opinion No. 2020-Ohio-3325.] 
 
 
 
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. 2020-OHIO-3325 
BUTLER COUNTY BAR ASSOCIATION v. BLAUVELT. 
[Until this opinion appears in the Ohio Official Reports advance sheets, it 
may be cited as Butler Cty. Bar Assn. v. Blauvelt, Slip Opinion No.  
2020-Ohio-3325.] 
Attorneys—Misconduct—Violation of the Rules of Professional Conduct, namely, 
engaging in conduct that adversely reflects on the lawyer’s fitness to 
practice law—Conditionally stayed two-year suspension. 
(No. 2020-0226—Submitted April 8, 2020—Decided June 17, 2020.) 
ON CERTIFIED REPORT by the Board of Professional Conduct of the Supreme 
Court, No. 2019-028. 
_______________________ 
Per Curiam. 
{¶ 1} Respondent, Scott Nicholas Blauvelt, of Hamilton, Ohio, Attorney 
Registration No. 0068177, was admitted to the practice of law in Ohio in 1997. 
{¶ 2} In June 2019, relator, Butler County Bar Association, charged 
Blauvelt with violating Prof.Cond.R. 8.4(h) (prohibiting a lawyer from engaging in 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO 
 
2
conduct that adversely reflects on the lawyer’s fitness to practice law) after he 
pleaded guilty to charges of public indecency and reckless operation of a vehicle.  
The parties entered into stipulations of fact, misconduct, and aggravating and 
mitigating factors and jointly recommended that Blauvelt serve a conditionally 
stayed two-year suspension.  Blauvelt and three medical professionals testified at a 
hearing before a panel of the Board of Professional Conduct, and the board has 
issued a report finding that Blauvelt engaged in the stipulated misconduct and 
recommending that we impose the parties’ agreed-upon sanction, with a few 
modifications to the conditions of the stay.  Neither party has filed objections to the 
board’s report. 
{¶ 3} Based on our review of the record, we agree with the board’s finding 
of misconduct and adopt its recommended sanction. 
Misconduct 
{¶ 4} Blauvelt has a history of public nudity.  In 2006, when he was the 
Hamilton city prosecutor, security cameras recorded him naked after hours in the 
government building housing the prosecutor’s office.  He was charged with public 
indecency, but the case was dismissed based on a speedy-trial violation.  The city 
nonetheless terminated Blauvelt’s employment. 
{¶ 5} In March 2018, an officer stopped Blauvelt’s vehicle for a headlight 
violation and observed that Blauvelt was naked.  No charges were filed as a result 
of that incident. 
{¶ 6} In October 2018, the Ohio State Highway Patrol received a report that 
a motorist was masturbating while driving.  A state trooper stopped Blauvelt’s 
vehicle and found him naked, with pants covering his lap.  After talking with 
Blauvelt, the trooper suspected that Blauvelt was intoxicated and arrested him. 
{¶ 7} Blauvelt was charged with public indecency in the Lebanon 
Municipal Court and with operating a vehicle while under the influence of alcohol 
or drugs in the Franklin Municipal Court.  He later pleaded guilty to the public-
January Term, 2020 
 
3
indecency offense, and the Lebanon court sentenced him to a suspended 30-day jail 
term and ordered him to pay a fine and serve a one-year term of nonreporting 
probation.  In the Franklin court, Blauvelt pleaded guilty to an amended charge of 
reckless operation of a vehicle, and the court sentenced him to a suspended three-
day jail term and ordered him to pay a fine and complete a driver-intervention 
program. 
{¶ 8} During his disciplinary proceedings, Blauvelt acknowledged that 
there had been other occasions on which he drove his vehicle while naked but was 
not detected by authorities. 
{¶ 9} Based on the above conduct, the parties stipulated and the board found 
that Blauvelt violated Prof.Cond.R. 8.4(h).  See Disciplinary Counsel v. Bricker, 
137 Ohio St.3d 35, 2013-Ohio-3998, 997 N.E.2d 500, ¶ 21 (explaining that 
Prof.Cond.R. 8.4(h) is a catchall provision and that when a lawyer’s conduct is not 
specifically prohibited by the Rules of Professional Conduct, he may be found to 
have violated Prof.Cond.R. 8.4(h) if he engaged in misconduct that adversely 
reflects on his fitness to practice law).  We agree with the board’s finding of 
misconduct. 
Sanction 
{¶ 10} When imposing sanctions for attorney misconduct, we consider all 
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. 
{¶ 11} As for aggravating factors, the board found that Blauvelt had 
engaged in a pattern of misconduct and submitted a false statement during the 
disciplinary process.  See Gov.Bar R. V(13)(B)(3) and (6).  To support the finding 
of a false statement, the board noted that during Blauvelt’s initial evaluation with 
Stuart W. Bassman, Ed.D., a psychologist who evaluated Blauvelt for a potential 
sexual disorder, Blauvelt disclosed only the October 2018 incident, which had led 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO 
 
4
to his criminal convictions, and intentionally withheld his prior incidents of public 
nudity.  At the time of the evaluation, Blauvelt knew that Dr. Bassman would be 
providing his assessment to relator as part of the disciplinary investigation.  
Although Blauvelt ultimately fully disclosed his prior conduct to Dr. Bassman in a 
supplemental evaluation, the board found—and we agree—that Blauvelt’s 
omissions during his initial evaluation constitute an aggravating factor. 
{¶ 12} As for mitigation, the board found that Blauvelt has a clean 
disciplinary record, he had had a cooperative attitude toward the disciplinary 
proceedings, he had submitted evidence of good character or reputation, other 
penalties had been imposed for some of his misconduct, and he had expressed 
sincere remorse.  See Gov.Bar R. V(13)(C)(1), (4), (5), and (6). 
{¶ 13} Blauvelt also demonstrated the existence of a qualifying mental 
disorder.  See Gov.Bar R. V(13)(C)(7).  As noted above, three medical 
professionals testified at Blauvelt’s disciplinary hearing: his psychiatrist, Michael 
Miller, M.D.; his psychologist, Chris Modrall, Ph.D.; and Dr. Bassman, who had 
evaluated Blauvelt for a potential sexual disorder.  In 2005, Blauvelt was diagnosed 
with bipolar disorder, and Dr. Miller has been treating him with medication since 
2006.  Dr. Modrall has been treating Blauvelt with psychotherapy periodically since 
2011.  Dr. Miller more recently diagnosed Blauvelt with alcoholism. 
{¶ 14} According to Dr. Miller, a combination of Blauvelt’s bipolar 
disorder, episodic alcohol abuse, and other personality factors contributed to cause 
the misconduct in this case.  Dr. Miller and Dr. Modrall testified that Blauvelt has 
sustained periods of successful treatment for bipolar disorder with medication and 
psychotherapy.  However, because Blauvelt’s episodic alcohol abuse came to light 
more recently, he has not yet been properly treated for alcoholism.  Dr. Miller and 
Dr. Modrall therefore recommended that Blauvelt undergo a chemical-dependency 
evaluation to determine the best course of treatment for that affliction.  Both Dr. 
Miller and Dr. Modrall concluded that despite the mental and substance-use 
January Term, 2020 
 
5
disorders, if Blauvelt obtains treatment for his issues with alcohol and continues his 
treatment regimen for bipolar disorder, he will be fit to practice law. 
{¶ 15} Dr. Bassman concluded that Blauvelt does not appear to have any 
type of paraphilia, such as exhibitionism.  In accord with the findings of Blauvelt’s 
mental-health practitioners, Dr. Bassman concluded that Blauvelt’s misconduct in 
this case was a result of his bipolar disorder and alcohol abuse and that he can 
function as a lawyer as long as he continues with treatment for his mental disorder 
and abstains from alcohol. 
{¶ 16} For his part, Blauvelt admitted that although he has mostly managed 
his bipolar disorder, his alcohol abuse—more specifically, his binge drinking—has 
at times diminished his ability to moderate his behavior.  Blauvelt testified that in 
addition to continuing his treatment for bipolar disorder, he had abstained from 
alcohol since June 2019, started attending Alcoholic Anonymous (“AA”) meetings, 
and entered into a contract with the Ohio Lawyers Assistance Program (“OLAP”). 
{¶ 17} In crafting its recommended sanction, the board found the facts in 
Columbus Bar Assn. v. Linnen, 111 Ohio St.3d 507, 2006-Ohio-5480, 857 N.E.2d 
539, the most similar to those here.  In Linnen, an attorney shocked at least 30 
different women by appearing before each of them naked and photographing their 
reactions.  The attorney also tapped or pinched some women’s buttocks.  Id. at ¶ 3.  
He later pleaded guilty to 53 misdemeanors, including multiple counts of sexual 
imposition and public indecency.  We found the existence of several aggravating 
factors, including that the attorney had not genuinely acknowledged the wrongful 
nature of his conduct or the trauma he had caused to his victims.  Id. at ¶ 9, 23-24.  
We also declined to find his purported sex addiction to be a mitigating factor, 
suspecting that he had sought the diagnosis merely to raise it in his defense to the 
disciplinary and criminal charges.  Id. at ¶ 22.  Based on those circumstances, we 
indefinitely suspended him from the practice of law.  Id. at ¶ 33. 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO 
 
6
{¶ 18} The board found several key differences between the facts here and 
those in Linnen that weigh in favor of a far less severe sanction in this case.  Most 
notably, Blauvelt established a mitigating mental disorder, demonstrated remorse, 
and “genuinely appear[ed] committed to ongoing treatment.”  The board also 
observed that whereas Linnen had targeted female victims, Blauvelt did not appear 
to have targeted anyone. 
{¶ 19} Considering that none of Blauvelt’s clients were harmed by his 
misconduct and nothing in the record indicates that his disorders—when 
controlled—affect his ability to competently and ethically practice law, the board 
accepted the parties’ proposed sanction of a stayed two-year suspension.  The board 
recommends conditioning the stay on Blauvelt’s abstaining from alcohol, 
undergoing a chemical-dependency evaluation, following any directives from his 
mental-health practitioners resulting from that evaluation, and serving a five-year 
period of monitored probation to ensure that he continues his recovery and 
maintains sobriety. 
{¶ 20} “We have consistently recognized that ‘the goal of disciplinary 
proceedings is not to punish the errant lawyer, but to protect the public.’ ”  
Disciplinary Counsel v. Corner, __ Ohio St.3d __, 2020-Ohio-961, __ N.E.3d __, 
¶ 21, quoting Toledo Bar Assn. v. Hales, 120 Ohio St.3d 340, 2008-Ohio-6201, 899 
N.E.2d 130, ¶ 21.  We have also previously explained that “we tailor the conditions 
for staying a suspension to the causes of the attorney’s misconduct.”  Disciplinary 
Counsel v. Oberholtzer, 136 Ohio St.3d 314, 2013-Ohio-3706, 995 N.E.2d 217, 
¶ 35.  With those purposes in mind—and considering the unique and fairly 
unprecedented circumstances of this case—we adopt the board’s recommended 
sanction.  The board’s recommended conditions are properly tailored to address the 
causes of Blauvelt’s misconduct and ensure that he adheres to his treatment 
regimens. 
 
 
January Term, 2020 
 
7
Conclusion 
{¶ 21} Scott Nicholas Blauvelt is hereby suspended from the practice of law 
in Ohio for two years, with the suspension stayed in its entirety on the conditions 
that Blauvelt (1) comply with his OLAP contract, (2) maintain full compliance with 
his treatment plan as prescribed by his mental-health practitioners, (3) undergo a 
chemical-dependency evaluation and follow any treatment or counseling plan 
prescribed by his physician and mental-health practitioners as a result of that 
evaluation, (4) continue to abstain from the use of alcohol, (5) serve and 
successfully complete a five-year term of monitored probation pursuant to Gov.Bar 
R. V(21) to ensure compliance with his treatment and recovery protocol, and (6) 
refrain from further misconduct.  If Blauvelt fails to comply with any of the 
conditions of the stay, the stay will be lifted and he will serve the entire two-year 
suspension.  Costs are taxed to Blauvelt. 
Judgment accordingly. 
O’CONNOR, C.J., and FRENCH, FISCHER, DEWINE, DONNELLY, and 
STEWART, JJ., concur. 
KENNEDY, J., not participating. 
_________________ 
Christopher J. Pagan, Bar Counsel, for relator. 
Daniel J. Hurr, for respondent. 
_________________