Case Title: Disciplinary Counsel v. Hines

Citation: 2012-Ohio-3929

Docket Number: 

State: ohio

Court: Ohio Supreme Court

Date: 2012-09-06T00:00:00Z

Document:
[Until this opinion appears in the Ohio Official Reports advance sheets, it may be cited as 
Disciplinary Counsel v. Hines, Slip Opinion No. 2012-Ohio-3929.] 
 
 
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. 2012-OHIO-3929 
DISCIPLINARY COUNSEL v. HINES. 
[Until this opinion appears in the Ohio Official Reports advance sheets,  
it may be cited as Disciplinary Counsel v. Hines,  
Slip Opinion No. 2012-Ohio-3929.] 
Attorneys—Misconduct—Sexual 
relation 
with 
client—Six-month 
stayed 
suspension. 
(Nos. 2011-0309 and 2011-1759—Submitted February 8, 2012—Decided 
September 6, 2012.) 
ON CERTIFIED REPORT of the Board of Commissioners on Grievances and 
Discipline of the Supreme Court, No. 10-088. 
__________________ 
Per Curiam. 
{¶ 1} Respondent, Dean Edward Hines of Centerville, Ohio, Attorney 
Registration No. 0062990, was admitted to the practice of law in Ohio in 1994.  
On October 11, 2010, relator, disciplinary counsel, filed a complaint alleging that 
Hines had engaged in an inappropriate relationship with a client and violated 
Prof.Cond.R. 1.8(j) and 8.4(h). 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO 
2 
 
{¶ 2} The parties stipulated to Hines’s misconduct.  Upon the parties’ 
stipulations, the Board of Commissioners on Grievances and Discipline accepted 
the parties’ joint recommendation that we publicly reprimand Hines.  However, 
we did not accept the recommendation and remanded the case for further 
proceedings. 
{¶ 3} On October 14, 2011, the Board of Commissioners on Grievances 
and Discipline issued a second report and recommended a 12-month suspension 
of Hines’s law license, with six months stayed.1 
Misconduct 
{¶ 4} In early 2009, Hines agreed to represent a new client in an ongoing 
domestic-relations dispute with the client’s ex-husband.  On March 16, 2009, after 
several appointments and a pretrial conference, Hines invited the client to dinner, 
where he discussed his interest in dating her.  Hines assured the client that a 
personal relationship between the two would not pose a conflict of interest with 
respect to their attorney-client relationship.  After another dinner the next 
evening, Hines and the client became sexually intimate.  Describing her feelings 
at this time, the client later testified that she was overwhelmed by Hines’s 
advances and that she was afraid to resist him when she needed his legal 
assistance. 
{¶ 5} In the months that followed, Hines continued to represent the client 
in the domestic dispute while continuing their romantic relationship.  Hines hired 
the client to work as a bookkeeper at his law firm, leased a car for her use, and 
contributed to her mortgage and utility payments.  They traveled together to 
Austria, Arizona, and South Carolina, and when the client underwent surgery 
                                                 
1 The board report recommending that we adopt the parties’ consent-to-discipline agreement was 
filed in case No. 2011-0309.  Upon filing with this court, the board report following remand was 
assigned case No. 2011-1759.  We consolidate these two cases, sua sponte, for disposition. 
January Term, 2012 
3 
 
requiring a lengthy recovery period, Hines moved the client and her children into 
his home. 
{¶ 6} The relationship fell apart in November 2009.  On November 9, 
2009, Hines called 9-1-1 to report a domestic dispute with the client.  He filed 
charges of aggravated menacing and domestic violence and obtained a temporary 
protection order barring any contact with Hines.  The charges were eventually 
dropped. 
{¶ 7} The day after their altercation, Hines fired the client.  A few days 
later, he mailed a letter simultaneously notifying her of an adverse ruling in the 
underlying domestic case and of the end of their attorney-client relationship. 
{¶ 8} When Hines mailed the letter, 11 days remained in which the client 
could protect her legal rights by objecting to the magistrate’s ruling.  Hines must 
have known about the client’s vulnerability; during their relationship, she had 
faced financial troubles and a serious physical illness requiring surgery, not to 
mention the legal issues for which she had sought Hines’s help.  Yet Hines did not 
seek leave for an extension of this deadline, refer the client to another attorney, or 
otherwise assist the client in protecting her rights.  Instead, he left a vulnerable 
client without legal representation or assistance at a critical time in her case, and 
he did so through an accusatory letter that blamed the client for the adverse 
decision. 
{¶ 9} Although he left the client without counsel to protect her rights, 
Hines continued to make overtures to her.  He repeatedly e-mailed her and sent 
her text messages.  As a practical matter, these overtures encouraged the client to 
violate the temporary protection order.  She did not accept that invitation, even 
after Hines’s promises that he would not report her to police if she responded. 
{¶ 10} The parties have stipulated that Hines’s conduct violated 
Prof.Cond.R. 1.8(j), which generally prohibits sexual activity between attorneys 
and their clients, and Prof.Cond.R. 8.4(h), which bars behavior that reflects 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO 
4 
 
adversely on the fitness of a lawyer to practice law.  We adopt the board’s 
findings of fact and misconduct. 
Sanction 
{¶ 11} The parties stipulated to the absence of aggravating factors.  
However, the Board of Commissioners on Grievances and Discipline identified 
several aggravating factors pertaining to Hines’s misconduct: (1) he “knew from 
the outset that his conduct violated the Ohio Rules of Professional Conduct but he 
nevertheless acted with a clearly selfish motive,” (2) he “has attempted to excuse 
or minimize that conduct rather than acknowledge that it was wrong,” and (3) the 
client “was a vulnerable [person] and has been harmed as a result of” Hines’s 
misconduct.  Hines objects to these findings.  We overrule the objections and 
adopt the findings of aggravating factors. 
{¶ 12} The parties stipulated to the following mitigating factors: (1) Hines 
has no prior disciplinary record, (2) Hines cooperated with the investigation of his 
misconduct, and (3) as evidenced by several letters of support, Hines enjoys a 
positive reputation in the legal community. 
{¶ 13} The disciplinary counsel suggests a six-month suspension, with all 
six months stayed.  Hines suggests a public reprimand or a stayed suspension of 
no more than six months.  The Board of Commissioners on Grievances and 
Discipline recommends that we suspend Hines from the practice of law for 12 
months, with the final six months stayed. 
{¶ 14} In the past, we have imposed public reprimands on attorneys who 
engaged in improper consensual relationships with their clients, when the 
relationships did not compromise the clients’ interests.  See Disciplinary Counsel 
v. Siewert, 130 Ohio St.3d 402, 2011-Ohio-5935, 958 N.E.2d 946, ¶ 9 (citing 
several such outcomes).  But this is not a simple case of mutual consent; Hines 
used his position of power to initiate and pursue an intimate relationship with a 
vulnerable client who was afraid to resist.  Furthermore, Hines’s conduct in 
January Term, 2012 
5 
 
leaving the client without legal assistance at a critical juncture in her case 
threatened her interests.  A public reprimand is not enough. 
{¶ 15} Nor do we find Hines’s misdeeds comparable to those of attorneys 
whom we have suspended.  See, e.g., Cleveland Metro. Bar Assn. v. Lockshin, 125 
Ohio St.3d 529, 2010-Ohio-2207, 929 N.E.2d 1028 (indefinite suspension for an 
attorney who made inappropriate sexual comments to a number of women, 
including clients, and who failed to file a notice of appeal on time); Disciplinary 
Counsel v. Goldblatt, 118 Ohio St.3d 310, 2008-Ohio-2458, 888 N.E.2d 1091 
(indefinite suspension for an attorney who attempted to arrange a sexual 
encounter with a minor); Butler Cty. Bar Assn. v. Williamson, 117 Ohio St.3d 
399, 2008-Ohio-1196, 884 N.E.2d 55 (indefinite suspension for an attorney in an 
improper-relationship case who lied about the relationship and failed to respond 
to subpoenas).  Hines’s conduct involved only one client, he has not engaged in 
any deception to hide the misconduct, and he has cooperated with the disciplinary 
process. 
{¶ 16} The appropriate penalty in cases like these is often a stayed 
suspension, which reflects the hope that the misconduct is limited and the reality 
that its recurrence would necessitate serious consequences.  See, e.g., Toledo Bar 
Assn. v. Burkholder, 109 Ohio St.3d 443, 2006-Ohio-2817, 848 N.E.2d 840. 
{¶ 17} Like Hines, the attorney in Burkholder pursued an improper 
relationship with a vulnerable domestic-relations client.  Burkholder made 
numerous advances to the client until she fired him.  However, Burkholder had no 
prior disciplinary violations, and he cooperated throughout the disciplinary 
process.  Id. at ¶ 9.  We imposed a six-month, stayed suspension of Burkholder’s 
license to practice law.  Id. at ¶ 14. 
{¶ 18} We imposed the same penalty in Disciplinary Counsel v. Siewert, 
130 Ohio St.3d 402, 2011-Ohio-5935, 958 N.E.2d 946.  The attorney in Siewert 
engaged in a consensual but improper relationship with a domestic-relations 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO 
6 
 
client.  Unlike Hines, Siewert had a record of prior discipline; however, we noted 
as mitigating factors Siewert’s struggles with depression and his efforts to correct 
his personal problems.  Id. at ¶ 8. 
{¶ 19} We find Burkholder and Siewert instructive.  Like the attorneys in 
those cases, Hines made a serious mistake and abused the position of trust 
conferred upon attorneys, but the limited nature of his misconduct and his 
cooperative approach to the investigation give us reason to believe that Hines will 
conduct himself appropriately in the future. 
{¶ 20} Accordingly, we suspend Hines from the practice of law for six 
months, and we stay the suspension on the condition that Hines engage in no 
further misconduct.  Costs are taxed to Hines. 
Judgment accordingly. 
O’CONNOR, C.J., and PFEIFER, LUNDBERG STRATTON, O’DONNELL, 
LANZINGER, CUPP, and MCGEE BROWN, JJ., concur. 
__________________ 
 
Jonathan E. Coughlan, Disciplinary Counsel, and Joseph M. Caligiuri, 
Senior Assistant Disciplinary Counsel, for relator. 
Kegler, Brown, Hill & Ritter and Christopher J. Weber, for respondent. 
______________________