Case Title: Cincinnati Bar Assn. v. Wieczorek

Citation: 2013-Ohio-1743

Docket Number: 2013-0224

State: ohio

Court: Ohio Supreme Court

Date: 2013-05-01T00:00:00Z

Document:
[Until this opinion appears in the Ohio Official Reports advance sheets, it may be cited as 
Cincinnati Bar Assn. v. Wieczorek, Slip Opinion No. 2013-Ohio-1743.] 
 
 
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. 2013-OHIO-1743 
CINCINNATI BAR ASSOCIATION v. WIECZOREK. 
[Until this opinion appears in the Ohio Official Reports advance sheets,  
it may be cited as Cincinnati Bar Assn. v. Wieczorek,  
Slip Opinion No. 2013-Ohio-1743.] 
Attorneys at law—Misconduct—Sexual activity with a client—Consent-to-
discipline agreement—Public reprimand. 
(No. 2013-0224—Submitted February 27, 2013—Decided May 1, 2013.) 
ON CERTIFIED REPORT by the Board of Commissioners on Grievances and 
Discipline of the Supreme Court, No. 12-063. 
__________________ 
Per Curiam. 
{¶ 1} Respondent, Mark Jon Wieczorek of Cincinnati, Ohio, Attorney 
Registration No. 0082916, was admitted to the practice of law in Ohio in 2007.  
On August 6, 2012, relator, Cincinnati Bar Association, charged respondent with 
professional misconduct for engaging in consensual sexual activity with his client 
while representing her on a charge of driving while intoxicated. 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO 
2 
 
{¶ 2} A panel of the Board of Commissioners on Grievances and 
Discipline considered the cause on the parties’ consent-to-discipline agreement.  
See BCGD Proc.Reg. 11. 
{¶ 3} In the consent-to-discipline agreement, Wieczorek stipulated to the 
facts alleged in relator’s complaint and agreed 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 prior to the 
client-lawyer relationship). 
{¶ 4} The parties stipulated that mitigating factors included the absence 
of a prior disciplinary record and a cooperative attitude toward the disciplinary 
proceedings.  See BCGD Proc.Reg. 10(B)(2)(a) and (d).  In addition, the parties 
noted that Wieczorek’s personal relationship with this client did not adversely 
affect the legal representation that he provided her.  Based upon these factors, the 
parties stipulated that a public reprimand is the appropriate sanction for 
Wieczorek’s misconduct. 
{¶ 5} The panel and board found that the consent-to-discipline 
agreement conforms to BCGD Proc.Reg. 11 and recommend that we adopt the 
agreement in its entirety.  The board refers to similar disciplinary cases in support 
of its recommendation, including Allen Cty. Bar Assn. v. Bartels, 124 Ohio St.3d 
527, 2010-Ohio-1046, 924 N.E.2d 833 (imposing a public reprimand on an 
attorney who had a sexual relationship with a client), and Disciplinary Counsel v. 
Engler, 110 Ohio St.3d 138, 2006-Ohio-3824, 851 N.E.2d 502 (imposing a public 
reprimand on an attorney who had two sexual encounters with a client in a 
divorce case).  We agree that Wieczorek 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 public reprimand.  Therefore, we adopt the parties’ consent-to-
discipline agreement. 
January Term, 2013 
3 
 
{¶ 6} Accordingly, Wieczorek is hereby publicly reprimanded.  Costs are 
taxed to Wieczorek. 
Judgment accordingly. 
O’CONNOR, C.J., and PFEIFER, O’DONNELL, LANZINGER, KENNEDY, 
FRENCH, and O’NEILL, JJ., concur. 
__________________ 
Ann L. Lugbill, Edwin W. Patterson III, and Carolyn A. Taggart, for 
relator. 
Mark VanderLaan, for respondent. 
______________________