Title: Disciplinary Counsel v. Noble

State: ohio

Issuer: Ohio Supreme Court

Document:

[Until this opinion appears in the Ohio Official Reports advance sheets, it may be cited as 
Disciplinary Counsel v. Noble, Slip Opinion No. 2022-Ohio-2190.] 
                                                                
 
 
 
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. 2022-OHIO-2190 
DISCIPLINARY COUNSEL v. NOBLE. 
[Until this opinion appears in the Ohio Official Reports advance sheets, it 
may be cited as Disciplinary Counsel v. Noble, Slip Opinion No.  
2022-Ohio-2190.] 
Attorneys—Misconduct—Multiple 
offenses—Violations 
of 
the 
Rules 
of 
Professional Conduct, namely, engaging in sexual activity with a client in 
the absence of a preexisting consensual sexual relationship, knowingly 
making a false statement in the course of representing a client, knowingly 
making a false statement of fact or law to a tribunal, engaging in conduct 
that adversely reflects on the lawyer’s fitness to practice law, and engaging 
in conduct involving dishonesty, fraud, deceit, or misrepresentation—One-
year suspension with six months conditionally stayed. 
(No. 2021-1519—Submitted January 25, 2022—Decided June 29, 2022.) 
ON CERTIFIED REPORT by the Board of Professional Conduct of the Supreme 
Court, No. 2021-017. 
__________________ 
 
 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO 
 
2 
Per Curiam. 
{¶ 1} Respondent, Michael Allen Noble, of Ravenna, Ohio, Attorney 
Registration No. 0088639, was admitted to the practice of law in Ohio in 2012. 
{¶ 2} In a June 2021 complaint, relator, disciplinary counsel, alleged that 
Noble had committed five ethical violations by engaging in an inappropriate sexual 
relationship with a client and making false statements about his conduct to opposing 
counsel, a police chief, and a municipal court. 
{¶ 3} The parties submitted stipulations of fact and misconduct and 
numerous stipulated exhibits.  Noble testified before a three-member hearing panel 
of the Board of Professional Conduct.  The panel and the board each issued a report 
finding that Noble had committed the charged misconduct and recommending that 
we suspend him from the practice of law for one year, with six months stayed on 
conditions.  No objections have been filed.  Based on our review of the record and 
our precedent, we adopt the board’s findings of misconduct and recommended 
sanction. 
Misconduct 
Count I—Inappropriate Relationship with a Client 
{¶ 4} In September 2018, Jane Doe met with Noble to discuss the 
termination of her marriage, and she chose to have Noble represent her.  Initially, 
Doe’s meetings with Noble focused solely on her legal matter, but within a week 
or two, she and Noble began expressing feelings for each other.  After three or four 
meetings, they commenced a sexual relationship that continued for almost two 
years. 
{¶ 5} In November 2018, Doe’s husband, D.P., retained counsel and 
informed him that Noble was having an affair with Doe.  By December, Noble had 
filed a complaint for divorce on Doe’s behalf.  Shortly thereafter, D.P.’s counsel 
met with Noble and asked him if he was having a sexual relationship with Doe; 
Noble denied the relationship.  D.P.’s counsel commented that if Noble was in a 
January Term, 2022 
 
3 
sexual relationship with Doe, it would be a good time to withdraw from the case.  
Noble again denied his relationship with Doe. 
{¶ 6} Noble later told Doe that he had lied to opposing counsel about their 
relationship and that she should obtain new counsel to represent her.  In January 
2019, Noble withdrew from Doe’s divorce case and transferred her entire retainer 
to her new attorney.  Doe’s divorce became final in August 2019. 
{¶ 7} Based on the foregoing, the parties stipulated and the board found that 
Noble’s 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) and 4.1(a) (prohibiting a lawyer from 
knowingly making a false statement of material fact or law in the course of 
representing a client).  We adopt these findings of misconduct. 
Count II—False Statements to a Law-Enforcement Officer and a Tribunal 
{¶ 8} In 2020, Noble was campaigning as a judicial candidate for a seat on 
the Portage County Court of Common Pleas while also attempting to reconcile with 
his ex-wife.  He did not inform his ex-wife that he was still dating Doe, and he did 
not want his relationship with Doe to become public knowledge. 
{¶ 9} In April 2020, D.P.—a police officer—confronted Noble in the 
parking lot outside Noble’s office.  By that time, Noble had been dating Doe for 
over 18 months.  D.P. did not reveal his identity, and Noble claimed that he did not 
know who D.P. was—though D.P. repeatedly stated, “You know who I am.”  After 
about five minutes, both men drove away. 
{¶ 10} In late May, Noble’s ex-wife found a flirtatious text message from 
Doe on Noble’s cell phone and confronted him about it.  Noble denied having a 
physical relationship with Doe but told his ex-wife that Doe’s ex-husband, D.P., 
was a police officer who had accused Noble of having an affair with Doe.  Noble’s 
ex-wife reached out to D.P., asked if he would be willing to share any information 
that he had about Noble and Doe, and arranged to meet him at a restaurant. 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO 
 
4 
{¶ 11} The day before Noble’s ex-wife was scheduled to meet D.P., she was 
in a pizzeria when a man approached her and said that he thought he knew her.  
When she questioned how he knew her, the man said that he knew her husband.  
When she returned home that night, she found a manila envelope in her mailbox.  
The envelope contained a handwritten letter purportedly written by Doe that 
detailed her affair with Noble, a picture of Noble and Doe seated at a reception 
table, and a picture of a man and woman engaging in sexual intercourse.  She could 
not clearly see the faces of the man and woman in the latter picture. 
{¶ 12} When Noble’s ex-wife arrived at the restaurant to meet with D.P. the 
next day, she observed the same man from the pizzeria walk by her and sit at the 
bar.  Shortly thereafter, D.P. entered the restaurant and had a cordial conversation 
with Noble’s ex-wife for about an hour.  He showed her a picture of Noble and Doe 
at a wedding reception and told her that they were still involved in a romantic 
relationship.  D.P. recorded the conversation. 
{¶ 13} After that meeting, Noble’s ex-wife began to suspect a connection 
between D.P., the man from the pizzeria and the bar, and the envelope that had been 
left in her mailbox.  She told Noble that if he was being truthful about his 
relationship with Doe, they needed to report D.P.’s behavior to the police because 
she felt that D.P. was harassing her.  Noble once again denied his relationship with 
Doe. 
{¶ 14} On June 5, 2020, Noble arranged a meeting with D.P. through his 
counsel.  During that meeting, Noble claimed that he had a recording of D.P.’s 
meeting with Noble’s ex-wife.  Noble did not actually have a recording of the 
meeting between D.P. and Noble’s ex-wife, but unbeknownst to Noble, D.P. had 
recorded the meeting.  Noble attempted to use his purported recording as leverage 
and offered to “put an end” to the situation by having both men agree to have no 
further contact with the family of the other.  When D.P. stated that he had done 
nothing wrong, Noble told him, “You admitted some things on that tape that I am 
January Term, 2022 
 
5 
sure your superiors wouldn’t be too happy about.”  The meeting ended without 
resolution. 
{¶ 15} On June 7, Noble’s ex-wife contacted the police department in the 
city where she lived and told an officer that she was fearful of D.P. coming to her 
home.  On the officer’s advice, she sent D.P. a text message asking him not to 
contact her again, and he complied with that request.  Two days later, Noble and 
his ex-wife met with the chief of the police department where D.P. worked in a 
neighboring county.  During that meeting, Noble told the police chief that D.P. had 
accused him of sleeping with D.P.’s ex-wife, Doe.  Noble misrepresented the nature 
of his relationship with Doe, expressly denying that they had engaged in a physical 
relationship. 
{¶ 16} At the conclusion of that meeting, Noble and his ex-wife both filed 
written personnel complaints against D.P.  Noble’s complaint related to the April 
2020 encounter with D.P. in the parking lot of Noble’s office.  His ex-wife claimed 
that D.P. had insisted on meeting with her, that he had tried to probe her for 
information about Noble’s past, and that he had attempted to make her believe that 
Noble was “involved in affairs [and] other illegal activities.”  She also included 
information about the envelope that had been left at her home and the man who had 
approached her at the pizzeria and later sat at the bar during her meeting with D.P.  
Based on those complaints, the police department commenced an internal 
investigation into D.P.’s conduct. 
{¶ 17} D.P. appeared with his lawyer and a union representative for a 
formal investigatory interview.  He denied having any connection to the envelope 
or the man from the pizzeria and the bar.  He also gave the investigating officer the 
recordings of his parking-lot encounter with Noble, his meeting with Noble’s ex-
wife, and his meeting with his attorney and Noble.  After a full investigation, D.P. 
was cleared of any wrongdoing. 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO 
 
6 
{¶ 18} In July 2020, however, Noble and his ex-wife were charged with 
first-degree-misdemeanor counts of falsification and making false alarms for the 
complaints they had filed against D.P.  The charges against Noble were eventually 
dismissed, and his ex-wife pleaded guilty to an amended charge of disorderly 
conduct, a minor misdemeanor. 
{¶ 19} In December 2020, Noble petitioned to seal the record in his 
dismissed criminal case.  The prosecutor objected, and the court set the matter for 
a hearing.  When cross-examined at that hearing, Noble testified that he did not lie 
to the police chief.  He testified that he had complained to the police chief about 
D.P. harassing him in the parking lot of his office, stating, “So if you’re trying to 
somehow shade it that I lied to the chief, I did not.  I did not lie to a public official.”  
But when the prosecutor asked, “You lied in front of a public official while you 
were making a complaint to that public official?”  Noble replied, “Fair enough.”  
The court denied Noble’s petition to seal the record, noting that Noble had admitted 
to lying to the police and that the statute of limitations for the dismissed charges 
had not elapsed.  The court also expressed concern that sealing the record might 
impede the board’s ability to fulfill its obligations. 
{¶ 20} Noble stipulated and the board found that this conduct violated 
Prof.Cond.R. 3.3(a) (prohibiting a lawyer from knowingly making a false statement 
of fact or law to a tribunal), 8.4(c) (prohibiting a lawyer from engaging in conduct 
involving dishonesty, fraud, deceit, or misrepresentation), and 8.4(h) (prohibiting a 
lawyer from engaging in conduct that adversely reflects on the lawyer’s fitness to 
practice law).  We adopt these findings of misconduct and also find that Noble’s 
threats to report D.P.’s conduct to his employer and his repeated lies about his 
relationship with Doe in the context of the police investigation and the hearing on 
his petition to seal the record in his criminal case were sufficiently egregious to 
warrant the separate finding that he had violated Prof.Cond.R. 8.4(h). 
 
 
January Term, 2022 
 
7 
Sanction 
{¶ 21} 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. 
{¶ 22} The parties stipulated and the board found that three aggravating 
factors are present in this case—Noble acted with a dishonest or selfish motive, 
engaged in a pattern of misconduct, and committed multiple offenses.  See Gov.Bar 
R. V(13)(B)(2), (3), and (4).  As for mitigating factors, the board found that Noble 
has a clean disciplinary record, cooperated in the disciplinary process, and 
presented evidence of his good character or reputation.  See Gov.Bar R. 
V(13)(C)(1), (4), and (5).  The board noted that Noble had presented positive 
character letters from people who had known him for many years, including two 
sitting judges, a retired judge, a magistrate, a court mediator, and two attorneys—
all of whom were aware of the charges against him. 
{¶ 23} The board also found that Noble’s testimony and demeanor at the 
disciplinary hearing demonstrated that he has accepted responsibility and is 
genuinely remorseful for his misconduct.  Noble acknowledged that lawyers are 
held to a higher standard of conduct than the general public and that he failed to 
hold himself to that standard while making “a lot of really, really bad decisions.”  
He admitted that he had been dishonest with Doe, D.P. and D.P.’s counsel, the 
police chief, his ex-wife, and the judge who presided over the hearing on his 
petition to seal the criminal charges against him.  He stated that he had apologized 
to several of those people in person, and during his disciplinary hearing, he 
expressed deep regret to those he had not seen face-to-face.  In his apology to the 
legal community, Noble stated that his conduct was horrible and disgraceful and 
that he wished he had had the wherewithal to step back, take a look at what he was 
doing, and put a stop to it. 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO 
 
8 
{¶ 24} Ultimately, Noble recognized that if he had been truthful with his 
ex-wife about his relationship with Doe, the matters with the police department and 
D.P. would not have progressed as they did.  He also presented evidence in the form 
of a written report from a licensed, independent social worker from whom he had 
begun to receive counseling.  The report stated that Noble had made significant 
progress in his course of therapy, had developed insight into the patterns in his 
thinking and emotions, and had started to develop healthier coping strategies.  
Noble testified that he has a strong support system that includes his mother, his 
stepfather, and a large extended family.  He stated that during the pendency of this 
disciplinary proceeding, he reconciled with his father—from whom he had been 
estranged for several years—and that they now have breakfast together every 
Saturday.  He further explained that he is being mentored by the senior partner in 
his law firm and that he has received additional support and good advice from some 
members of the Portage County judiciary. 
{¶ 25} The parties jointly recommended that Noble be suspended from the 
practice of law for one year with six months stayed on the conditions that he commit 
no further misconduct and continue to participate in mental-health counseling for 
the duration of his suspension at a frequency to be determined by his counselor or 
another qualified healthcare professional.  The board noted that the two principal 
cases cited by the parties in support of that sanction are Disciplinary Counsel v. 
Benbow, 153 Ohio St.3d 350, 2018-Ohio-2705, 106 N.E.3d 57, and Akron Bar 
Assn. v. Williams, 104 Ohio St.3d 317, 2004-Ohio-6588, 819 N.E.2d 667. 
{¶ 26} Like Noble, Benbow engaged in an inappropriate sexual relationship 
with a client and compounded his misconduct by engaging in a series of denials to 
conceal his unethical conduct.  In addition to exchanging text messages, Facebook 
messages, and photographs of a sexual nature with the client, Benbow was caught 
on a live-video feed engaging in sexual conduct with his client at the courthouse as 
they waited for the magistrate to complete final orders in the client’s case.  After 
January Term, 2022 
 
9 
Benbow learned that the local sheriff’s office had initiated an investigation into the 
incident at the courthouse, Benbow reported portions of his conduct to the local bar 
association—but he misrepresented the extent of his relationship with the client and 
denied that he had engaged in any misconduct.  Benbow did not cooperate with the 
relator’s investigation and affirmatively misrepresented and omitted facts when 
deposed.  We suspended Benbow from the practice of law for two years, with the 
second year stayed on conditions. 
{¶ 27} In Williams, we imposed a two-year suspension with 18 months 
conditionally stayed on an attorney who had engaged in a brief sexual relationship 
with a vulnerable domestic-relations client and then denied the relationship under 
oath during his deposition.  In recommending that sanction, the board noted that 
Williams had exploited his client’s emotional and financial weaknesses and had 
“placed his credibility against his client’s integrity and steadfastly denied their 
sexual relationship under oath.”  Id. at ¶ 9. 
{¶ 28} Here, the board found that Noble had engaged in a pattern of 
dishonest conduct by lying to multiple people, including a judge, in his efforts to 
conceal his sexual relationship with Doe.  Moreover, his lies resulted in a formal 
investigation into D.P.’s conduct, which could have jeopardized D.P.’s career in 
law enforcement.  In contrast to Benbow and Williams, however, Noble did not 
attempt to mislead relator during its investigation into his misconduct.  Nor did he 
attempt to discredit his client as Williams did.  Therefore, the board found that 
Noble’s dishonest conduct warranted an actual suspension from the practice of law 
but that it warranted a lesser sanction than those we imposed in Benbow and 
Williams. 
{¶ 29} The board also considered Disciplinary Counsel v. Leon, 155 Ohio 
St.3d 582, 2018-Ohio-5090, 122 N.E.3d 1242.  Leon was hired by a husband and 
wife to pursue bankruptcy, but he never filed their petition.  Consequently, the 
couple’s creditors filed collection actions against them and foreclosed on their 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO 
 
10 
home.  During the representation, Leon also engaged in sexual activity with the 
wife.  Although he withdrew from the representation when confronted by the 
husband, he did not refund the couple’s retainer or filing fee.  We found that Leon 
had acted with a dishonest or selfish motive, had committed multiple offenses, and 
had harmed vulnerable clients.  But like Noble, he had no prior disciplinary record, 
fully cooperated in the disciplinary proceedings, and submitted evidence of his 
good character and reputation.  We suspended Leon for one year with the final six 
months conditionally stayed. 
{¶ 30} Lastly, the board considered Disciplinary Counsel v. Spinazze, 159 
Ohio St.3d 187, 2020-Ohio-957, 149 N.E.3d 503.  Spinazze, a part-time assistant 
city prosecutor, offered a plea to a defendant in a criminal matter.  But when 
confronted by the judge presiding over the case, Spinazze misrepresented his 
reasons for offering the plea and falsely stated that the arresting officers had 
consented to the agreement.  Based on those representations, the judge accepted the 
plea.  Like Noble, Spinazze made a series of false statements to cover up his 
misconduct, though he finally admitted his misconduct when his supervisor 
confronted him about the arresting officer’s objection to the plea.  We suspended 
Spinazze from the practice of law for six months with no stay. 
{¶ 31} In this case, the board determined that Noble’s dishonest conduct, 
combined with his inappropriate sexual relationship with Doe, warranted a sanction 
greater than the six-month suspension we imposed in Spinazze but less than the 
two-year partially stayed suspensions we imposed in Benbow and Williams.  In light 
of Noble’s full cooperation with relator’s investigation, his forthright testimony at 
his disciplinary hearing, his genuine remorse, and his acceptance of full 
responsibility for his misconduct, the board recommended that we adopt the parties’ 
jointly recommended sanction of a one-year suspension with six months stayed on 
conditions. 
January Term, 2022 
 
11 
{¶ 32} After independently reviewing the record and our precedent, we 
agree that the board’s recommended sanction is the appropriate sanction for 
Noble’s misconduct. 
Conclusion 
{¶ 33} Accordingly, Michael Allen Noble is suspended from the practice of 
law in Ohio for one year with six months stayed on the conditions that he (1) 
commit no further misconduct and (2) continue to participate in mental-health 
counseling throughout his suspension at a frequency to be determined by his 
counselor or another qualified healthcare professional.  If Noble fails to comply 
with any condition of the stay, the stay will be lifted and he will serve the entire 
one-year suspension.  Costs are taxed to Noble. 
Judgment accordingly. 
O’CONNOR, C.J., and KENNEDY, FISCHER, DEWINE, DONNELLY, STEWART, 
and BRUNNER, JJ., concur. 
_________________ 
Joseph M. Caligiuri, Disciplinary Counsel, for relator. 
Coughlan Law Firm, L.L.C., and Jonathan E. Coughlan, for respondent. 
_________________