Title: Toledo Bar Assn. v. Burkholder

State: ohio

Issuer: Ohio Supreme Court

Document:

[Cite as Toledo Bar Assn. v. Burkholder, 109 Ohio St.3d 443, 2006-Ohio-2817.] 
 
 
TOLEDO BAR ASSOCIATION v. BURKHOLDER. 
[Cite as Toledo Bar Assn. v. Burkholder,  
109 Ohio St.3d 443, 2006-Ohio-2817.] 
Attorneys — Misconduct — Failure to cooperate in a disciplinary investigation — 
Conduct adversely reflecting on fitness to practice law — Accepting 
employment when the lawyer’s judgment might be affected by personal 
interest — Six-month suspension stayed on condition. 
(No. 2005-2394 — Submitted February 8, 2006 — Decided June 21, 2006.) 
ON CERTIFIED REPORT by the Board of Commissioners on Grievances and 
Discipline of the Supreme Court, No. 05-038. 
__________________ 
 
Per Curiam. 
{¶ 1} Respondent, Fred Joseph Burkholder of Toledo, Ohio, Attorney 
Registration No. 0014094, was admitted to the Ohio bar in 1983. 
{¶ 2} On April 18, 2005, relator, Toledo Bar Association, filed a 
complaint charging respondent with professional misconduct.  Respondent filed 
an answer to the complaint, and a panel of the Board of Commissioners on 
Grievances and Discipline held a hearing on the complaint in September 2005.  
The panel then prepared written findings of fact, conclusions of law, and a 
recommendation, all of which the board adopted. 
Misconduct 
{¶ 3} Respondent testified at his disciplinary hearing that his law 
practice focused primarily on family law.  On April 20, 2004, Laurel Alexander 
met with respondent at his office to discuss the possible termination of her 
marriage.  At the end of their meeting, respondent told Alexander that she was 
beautiful and he would like to take her out on a date.  Alexander told respondent 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO 
2 
that she was not interested in dating him.  Alexander nonetheless did retain 
respondent to represent her, and respondent prepared a petition for the dissolution 
of Alexander’s marriage and a separation agreement, as she had requested. 
{¶ 4} In April, May, and June 2004, respondent and Alexander spoke by 
phone or left messages for each other dozens of times, and telephone records 
indicate that respondent called Alexander at work or on her cellular phone more 
than 100 times.  According to Alexander’s testimony at the disciplinary hearing, 
respondent asked her out to lunch and dinner repeatedly, but she told him she was 
not interested in dating.  Respondent disputed that testimony, although he 
acknowledged that he twice tried to “console” Alexander by asking her to go out 
to dinner or have a drink after work “just as friends.” 
{¶ 5} Respondent testified that Alexander came to his home several 
times during the representation, and on one occasion, he asked whether she 
wanted to see his penis.  Nothing further happened that evening, and Alexander 
left promptly. 
{¶ 6} On another occasion, according to Alexander and her co-worker, 
Barb Specht, respondent touched Alexander while they were at a bar.  That 
incident occurred while respondent was representing Alexander in May 2004.  
According to Specht, respondent put his arm around Alexander and pulled her 
close to him, and Specht twice heard Alexander ask respondent to remove his 
hand from her thigh.  Alexander testified that respondent touched her shoulders 
and her leg at the bar, and she indicated that respondent’s actions were 
inappropriate and made her feel nervous and uncomfortable. 
{¶ 7} Alexander’s dissolution agreement was filed on June 4, 2004.  She 
fired respondent as her lawyer on June 28, 2004, and hired new counsel. 
{¶ 8} We agree with the board’s finding that respondent’s actions 
violated the following Disciplinary Rules: DR 1-102(A)(6) (prohibiting conduct 
that adversely reflects on a lawyer’s fitness to practice law) and 5-101(A)(1) 
January Term, 2006 
3 
(barring an attorney from accepting employment if the exercise of professional 
judgment on behalf of the client reasonably may be affected by the lawyer’s 
financial, business, property, or personal interests). 
Sanction 
{¶ 9} In recommending a sanction for this misconduct, the board 
considered the aggravating and mitigating factors listed in Section 10 of the Rules 
and Regulations Governing Procedure on Complaints and Hearings Before the 
Board of Commissioners on Grievances and Discipline (“BCGD Proc.Reg.”).  As 
aggravating factors, the board found that respondent had acted with a selfish 
motive and that the victim was vulnerable.  BCGD Proc.Reg. 10(B)(1)(b) and (h).  
Mitigating factors cited by the board included the absence of any prior 
disciplinary violations by respondent, his cooperative attitude during the 
disciplinary process, and written statements from six lawyers and one judge about 
respondent’s good character and reputation in his community.  BCGD Proc.Reg. 
10(B)(2)(a), (d), and (e).  The board also noted that the misconduct occurred at a 
time when respondent was separated from his wife and was coping with a 
daughter’s illness. 
{¶ 10} Relator recommended that respondent be suspended from the 
practice of law for one year with six months of the suspension stayed.  The panel 
and the board recommended that respondent be publicly reprimanded. 
{¶ 11} We conclude that a sanction more severe than a public reprimand 
is warranted.  As the panel and the board noted in their reports, respondent was 
“relentless” in his pursuit of Alexander during his representation of her.  His 
openly expressed interest in dating Alexander at the very start of the professional 
relationship should have prompted him to decline the representation.  He had a 
clear duty at that point to avoid putting himself and his client in a situation in 
which his own personal interests could compromise his ability to provide sound 
advice to the client.  In addition, respondent’s unwelcome physical contact with 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO 
4 
Alexander at a bar, coupled with the entirely inappropriate remark about his penis 
at his home, was unethical and recklessly unprofessional.  Respondent’s words 
and actions reflected poorly on the legal profession, and they represented a 
betrayal of the trust that a vulnerable client had placed in respondent. 
{¶ 12} A stayed six-month suspension is the appropriate sanction for 
respondent’s misconduct.  We have imposed stayed suspensions in other cases 
involving unwanted sexual advances.  See Disciplinary Counsel v. Quatman, 108 
Ohio St.3d 389, 2006-Ohio-1196, 843 N.E.2d 1205 (imposing a stayed one-year 
suspension and two years’ probation on an attorney who had inappropriately 
touched a client’s breasts, had made an inappropriate comment to her, and then 
had submitted false statements and engaged in deceptive practices during the 
disciplinary process); Disciplinary Counsel v. Moore, 101 Ohio St.3d 261, 2004-
Ohio-734, 804 N.E.2d 423 (imposing a stayed one-year suspension and two years’ 
probation on an attorney who had made unsolicited and inappropriate sexual 
comments to a client and had engaged in consensual sexual relations with another 
client). 
{¶ 13} Unlike the attorney in the Quatman case, respondent cooperated in 
the disciplinary process and did not falsely blame his misconduct on alcohol 
abuse.  And unlike the attorney in the Moore case, respondent confined his 
misconduct to one client.  We conclude that a stayed suspension shorter than the 
stayed suspensions ordered in those cases is appropriate in this case. 
{¶ 14} Accordingly, respondent is hereby suspended from the practice of 
law in Ohio for six months, with the entire suspension stayed provided that 
respondent commit no further misconduct during the suspension period.  Costs are 
taxed to respondent. 
Judgment accordingly. 
 
MOYER, C.J., RESNICK, LUNDBERG STRATTON, O’CONNOR, O’DONNELL 
and LANZINGER, JJ., concur. 
January Term, 2006 
5 
 
PFEIFER, J., dissents and would publicly reprimand respondent. 
__________________ 
 
Jonathan B. Cherry, Bar Counsel; Rankin Law Office, L.L.C., and Bonnie 
R. Rankin; and Gregory L. Arnold, for relator. 
 
Arnold & Caruso, Ltd. and James D. Caruso, for respondent. 
______________________