Title: Akron Bar Assn. v. Miller

State: ohio

Issuer: Ohio Supreme Court

Document:

[Until this opinion appears in the Ohio Official Reports advance sheets, it may be cited as 
Akron Bar Assn. v. Miller, Slip Opinion No. 2011-Ohio-4412.] 
 
 
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. 2011-OHIO-4412 
AKRON BAR ASSOCIATION v.  MILLER. 
[Until this opinion appears in the Ohio Official Reports advance sheets, it 
may be cited as Akron Bar Assn. v. Miller, Slip Opinion No. 2011-Ohio-4412.] 
(No. 2011-0694 — Submitted June 21, 2011 — Decided September 7, 2011.) 
Attorneys — Misconduct — Sexual remarks to client — Prof.Cond.R. 8.4(h) — 
Conduct adversely reflecting on fitness to practice law — Six-month 
suspension, all stayed, on conditions. 
ON CERTIFIED REPORT by the Board of Commissioners on Grievances and 
Discipline of the Supreme Court, No. 10-073. 
____________________ 
 
Per Curiam. 
{¶ 1} Relator, Akron Bar Association, filed a complaint against E. Earl 
Miller, Attorney Registration No. 0077426, for violating the Rules of Professional 
Conduct, specifically Prof.Cond.R. 8.4(h) (engaging in conduct that adversely 
reflects on the lawyer’s fitness to practice law).  The complaint arose from a 
grievance filed by a client of Miller’s who had recorded a telephone conversation 
in which the respondent made inappropriate and unprofessional statements of a 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO 
2 
sexual nature to the client.  The parties stipulated to the facts and to a sanction of 
public reprimand.  A panel appointed pursuant to Gov.Bar R. V(6)(D)(3) 
conducted a hearing on February 15, 2011, at which the grievant, an employee of 
the bar association, the respondent, and a therapist who is treating the respondent 
testified.  Based on the stipulations, the testimony, and the physical exhibits 
(including the tape of the telephone call at issue), the panel recommended a six-
month suspension, stayed, and one year of probation as a sanction for the 
respondent.  The Board of Commissioners on Grievances and Discipline reviewed 
the panel’s recommendation and adopted the recommended sanction.  We concur. 
Factual Background 
{¶ 2} The facts in this case have been stipulated by the parties and formed 
the subject of testimony at the hearing. 
{¶ 3} On November 23, 2009, respondent was appointed by the Summit 
County Court of Common Pleas, Domestic Relations Division, to represent the 
client in defending against a show-cause order.  The show-cause order required 
the client to show why she should not be held in contempt for failing to make 
court-ordered child-support payments.  Respondent had no previous acquaintance 
with the client before his appointment as her attorney. 
{¶ 4} Respondent met with the client at his office twice, first on December 
10, 2009, and next on January 15, 2010.  In a telephone conference on January 21, 
2010, the client informed respondent that she had obtained a new job, an event 
that would be significant in the show-cause proceedings.  On January 29, 2010, 
respondent filed a motion for continuance of a hearing in the show-cause case on 
the grounds that the need to appear in court on February 9 might jeopardize the 
client’s new employment. 
{¶ 5} Sometime prior to February 2, 2010, the respondent and the client 
agreed that the best time for respondent to contact the client by telephone would 
be in the early morning when she was arriving home from work.  On February 2, 
January Term, 2011 
3 
respondent called the client at about 6:15 a.m.  Based on an earlier suggestion 
made by respondent about taping conversations, the client began recording the 
call part-way through because she felt uncomfortable about the time respondent 
was calling and the fact that he was talking about matters other than the case.  A 
copy of the recorded conversation on tape was offered as an exhibit at the hearing, 
and the parties stipulated to its authenticity. 
{¶ 6} During the recorded portion of the call, which lasted approximately 
four minutes, respondent asked the client about her breast size, and he stated that 
she should show him her breasts as a reward, given that he was performing a great 
deal of work for her for little compensation.  Respondent further suggested that 
the client perform oral sex on him.  Toward the end of the call respondent 
returned the discussion to matters legitimately related to the legal representation. 
{¶ 7} At no time did the respondent engage in any physical sexual activity 
with the client. 
Disciplinary Proceedings 
{¶ 8} The client submitted her grievance to the Akron Bar Association in 
early March 2010.  On March 26, 2010, respondent moved to withdraw as counsel 
for his client in the contempt case, and the domestic relations court granted the 
motion on April 2, 2010. 
{¶ 9} The Akron Bar Association filed its complaint against respondent 
with the Board of Commissioners on Grievances and Discipline on August 16, 
2010, and the case went to hearing before the panel on February 15, 2011.  The 
case was submitted on stipulations, exhibits, and the testimony of four witnesses. 
{¶ 10} An Akron Bar Association employee described the process by 
which the recording of respondent’s conversation on the client’s cell phone was 
re-recorded onto audio tape.  Thereafter, the employee prepared a written 
transcription of the conversation. 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO 
4 
{¶ 11} The client testified that she was surprised by the early call on 
February 2, 2010, and that she began to record it because the respondent told her 
he was just getting out of bed, which made her uncomfortable, and because he 
was not discussing her case.  She testified that receiving the call was “like being 
raped without being touched” and that she felt as though she were reduced to 
mere property. 
{¶ 12} The respondent testified that in defending the client against child-
support contempt, he urged her both to stay out of prison and get a job, and he 
gave her some leads for jobs.  His representation drew him into other cases to in 
which the client was a party.  Respondent tried to get the client’s driver’s license 
restored, which would enhance her ability to hold a job.  Respondent also filed a 
motion for continuance of a hearing date in order to allow the client to keep 
working at her job.  Respondent characterized his statements during the February 
2 
telephone 
call 
as 
“absolutely 
sickening,” 
an 
“abomination,” 
and 
“reprehensible.”  Respondent stated that “no one should be treated” the way he 
had treated the client. 
{¶ 13} Respondent is middle-aged and obtained his law license in 2004.  
He is in his second marriage and has two grown children.  Respondent has been 
under treatment for depression, attention deficit disorder, and diabetes for a 
number of years.  Respondent takes medications for those conditions, and from 
mid-January to mid-March 2010 respondent failed to fill his prescriptions and 
went without his medication.  The absence of medication made respondent 
anxious and more depressed, and he was “short and curt” with others.  According 
to the respondent, the lack of medication and his resentment at the client’s 
perceived ingratitude for his efforts, rather than sexual desire, caused his improper 
behavior.  Respondent began consulting with therapist Jeffrey Durr in March 
2010.  Respondent said that Durr has worked with him to gain perspective 
regarding his perfectionist tendencies. 
January Term, 2011 
5 
{¶ 14} The panel received testimony from Durr, a mental-health therapist 
and licensed clinical counselor.  Durr met with the respondent for an initial 
counseling session on March 29, 2010, and by the time of the hearing had had 23 
sessions with him.  Durr testified that the respondent came in an anxious and 
depressed state and that he did not mention the grievance until May 2010.  Durr 
stated that the respondent was “overgiving” and “raising the bar” in the sense that 
he put too much pressure on himself.  Respondent also experienced resentment 
when others did not respond with gratitude for his efforts, including his clients.  
Durr opined that such resentment, together with the withdrawal of medications, 
was the basis for the respondent’s improper conduct in this case.  Durr also stated 
that he believed respondent’s assertion that respondent had no desire to be with 
the client in a physical sense.  Durr stated that respondent understands the 
impropriety of what he did and that he has the tools to “stay centered” and avoid 
such misconduct in the future. 
{¶ 15} As mitigating factors pursuant to Section 10(B)(2) of the Rules and 
Regulations Governing Procedure on Complaints and Hearings Before the Board 
of Commissioners on Grievances and Discipline (“BCGD Proc.Reg.”), the parties 
stipulated that respondent had no prior disciplinary record, that he freely disclosed 
and adopted a cooperative attitude during the proceedings, and that he submitted 
character evidence in his favor.  BDGD Proc.Reg. 10(B)(2)(a), (d), and (e), 
Additionally, the panel found a diagnosed and treated mental illness that 
contributed to the cause of the misconduct as a mitigation factor pursuant to 
BCGD Proc.Reg. 10(B)(2)(g). 
{¶ 16} As aggravating factors, the panel identified respondent’s selfish 
motive and the client’s vulnerability with resulting harm to the client.  BCGD 
Proc.Reg. 10(B)(1)(b) and (h).  The panel found that respondent had violated the 
trust he owed the client by deliberately trying to hurt and humiliate her in order to 
make himself feel better. 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO 
6 
Disposition 
{¶ 17} The parties stipulated to a public reprimand as a sanction for the 
respondent for violations of Prof.Cond.R. 8.4(h). Despite the stipulation, the panel 
recommended a six-month suspension, stayed, with one year of probation 
conditioned on continued successful treatment by Mr. Durr and respondent’s 
regular physician.  The board agreed with the panel recommendation, and the 
respondent has not objected.  We concur with the board. 
{¶ 18} Crucial to the question of what sanction to apply is the precise 
nature of respondent’s misconduct.  Ohio attorneys have a duty to refrain from 
soliciting or engaging in sexual activity with a client unless a consensual sexual 
relationship existed between them when the client-lawyer relationship 
commenced.  Prof.Cond.R. 1.8(j).  Even before the adoption of the Rules of 
Professional Conduct, we consistently disapproved of lawyers engaging in sexual 
conduct with clients where the sexual relationship “ ‘arises from and occurs 
during the attorney-client relationship,’ ” and such misconduct “ ‘warranted a 
range of disciplinary measures depending on the relative impropriety of the 
situation, including actual suspension from the practice of law.’ ”  Butler Cty. Bar 
Assn. v. Williamson, 117 Ohio St.3d 399, 2008-Ohio-1196, 884 N.E.2d 55, ¶ 8, 
quoting Cleveland Bar Assn. v. Kodish, 110 Ohio St.3d 162, 2006-Ohio-4090, 
852 N.E.2d 160, ¶ 66.  In extreme cases disbarment was held to be warranted.  
Disciplinary Counsel v. Sturgeon, 111 Ohio St.3d 285, 2006-Ohio-5708, 855 
N.E.2d 1221 (multiple instances of sexual conduct with clients, combined with 
deception, dishonesty, and lack of remorse).  On the other hand, when a 
consensual relationship with a client did not actually compromise the client’s 
interests, a public reprimand has sometimes been the sanction.  Disciplinary 
Counsel v. Detweiler, 127 Ohio St.3d 73, 2010-Ohio-5033, 936 N.E.2d 498;  
Allen Cty. Bar Assn. v. Bartels, 124 Ohio St.3d 527, 2010-Ohio-1046, 924 N.E.2d 
833. 
January Term, 2011 
7 
{¶ 19} The case before us does not charge a violation of Prof.Cond.R. 
1.8(j), but rather that respondent engaged in conduct that adversely reflected on 
his fitness to practice law in contravention of Prof.Cond.R. 8.4(h).  The improper 
conduct consists of statements by telephone in the nature of sexual advances from 
the attorney to the client.  The case shows a single instance of such misconduct, 
no actual sexual relationship, no associated misconduct, remorse on the part of the 
respondent, and ongoing medical and psychological treatment.  In evaluating the 
evidence, the panel noted that the “respondent asserts anger rather than sexual 
gratification as the motivations for his inappropriate comments” and concluded 
that “[t]here is no evidence, other than the words he used, that this is not true.”  
But although the misconduct in this case did not involve an actual sexual 
relationship, it did involve a violation of the client’s trust and a deliberate (and 
successful) attempt to demean her by exploiting her vulnerabilities.  The cases 
involving consensual sexual conduct are therefore not on point. 
{¶ 20} We adopt the recommendation of the board and order that 
respondent be suspended from the practice of law for six months.  The entire 
suspension shall be stayed on the conditions that respondent serve a one-year 
period of probation pursuant to Gov.Bar R. V(9) and that he continue successful 
treatment by his doctor and his therapist during the probation period.  If 
respondent fails to comply with these conditions, the stay will be lifted and 
respondent shall serve the six months’ actual suspension followed by a one-year 
period of probation.  Costs are taxed to respondent. 
Judgment accordingly. 
 
O’CONNOR, C.J., and PFEIFER, LUNDBERG STRATTON, O’DONNELL, 
LANZINGER, CUPP, and MCGEE BROWN, JJ., concur. 
____________________________ 
 
James Campbell, for relator. 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO 
8 
 
Buckingham, Doolittle & Burroughs, L.L.P., and Peter T. Cahoon, for 
respondent. 
________________________________