Title: Disciplinary Counsel v. Romer

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. Romer, Slip Opinion No. 2023-Ohio-3099.] 
 
                                                                
 
 
 
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. 2023-OHIO-3099 
DISCIPLINARY COUNSEL v. ROMER. 
[Until this opinion appears in the Ohio Official Reports advance sheets, it 
may be cited as Disciplinary Counsel v. Romer, Slip Opinion No.  
2023-Ohio-3099.] 
Attorneys—Misconduct—Violations of the Rules of Professional Conduct, 
including committing an illegal act that reflects adversely on lawyer’s 
honesty or trustworthiness and engaging in conduct that adversely reflects 
on lawyer’s fitness to practice law—Indefinite suspension, with no credit 
for time served under interim felony suspension. 
(No. 2023-0469—Submitted May 2, 2023—Decided September 6, 2023.) 
ON CERTIFIED REPORT by the Board of Professional Conduct of the Supreme 
Court, No. 2022-035. 
__________________ 
Per Curiam. 
{¶ 1} Respondent, Shawn Alexander Romer, of Independence, Ohio, 
Attorney Registration No. 0084251, was admitted to the practice of law in Ohio in 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO 
 
2 
2008.  On March 7, 2022, we suspended his license on an interim basis following 
his felony conviction on one count of attempted corrupting another with drugs, and 
that suspension remains in effect.  See In re Romer, 168 Ohio St.3d 1203, 2022-
Ohio-641, 195 N.E.3d 1058. 
{¶ 2} In an August 2022 complaint, relator, disciplinary counsel, charged 
Romer with professional misconduct arising from his substance abuse, his felony 
conviction, and a related misdemeanor conviction on a single count of soliciting.  
Romer waived a probable-cause determination and, in his answer, admitted many 
of relator’s factual allegations and all the alleged rule violations.  The parties also 
jointly submitted comprehensive stipulations and proposed that Romer be 
indefinitely suspended from the practice of law with no credit for the time served 
under his interim suspension. 
{¶ 3} After conducting a hearing, a panel of the Board of Professional 
Conduct issued a report finding that Romer had committed the alleged rule 
violations and recommended that we adopt the parties’ proposed sanction.  The 
board adopted the panel’s report and recommendation.  We adopt the board’s 
findings of misconduct and indefinitely suspend Romer from the practice of law 
with no credit for the time served under his interim suspension. 
MISCONDUCT 
{¶ 4} Romer has had a long-term substance-abuse problem.  On three 
occasions between 2011 and 2017, he was charged with operating a vehicle while 
under the influence of alcohol or a drug of abuse (“OVI”) and other related offenses.  
The first two times, he was convicted of lesser offenses; however, in 2017, he was 
convicted of OVI.  That same year, as the result of a separate incident, he was also 
convicted of disorderly conduct due to intoxication. 
{¶ 5} Around September 2017, Romer voluntarily began a treatment 
program for alcohol addiction and entered into a contract with the Ohio Lawyers 
Assistance Program (“OLAP”).  He maintained his sobriety and complied with his 
January Term, 2023 
 
3 
OLAP contract until the summer of 2019 when he relapsed and resumed drinking 
heavily and using cocaine. 
{¶ 6} Through his cocaine use, Romer met a man who called himself 
“Seven,” who was later identified as Reuben Rankin.  Romer began purchasing 
cocaine from Rankin, who sent a 15-year-old girl, “A.L.,” to deliver the cocaine to 
Romer’s residence.  That arrangement continued for several months, during which 
Rankin offered to arrange for Romer to meet women for sex and Romer consistently 
denied those offers.  Rankin did not inform Romer that Rankin was trafficking the 
women. 
{¶ 7} On the evening of September 27, 2019, Romer purchased cocaine 
from Rankin, which was delivered by A.L.  Romer used the cocaine, and around 
8:00 a.m. the next morning, he contacted Rankin to purchase more.  As part of the 
purchase, Rankin offered to arrange for an unnamed female to perform oral sex on 
Romer, and Romer accepted the offer.  Rankin sent A.L. to Romer’s home to 
deliver the cocaine and perform the sex act.  Romer neither sought out nor desired 
to have sexual contact with a minor.  He asked A.L. her age, and she told him that 
she was 19 years old. 
{¶ 8} Romer and A.L. watched pornography and took a shower together.  
A.L. also touched Romer’s genital area inside and outside of his pants.  However, 
Romer was unable to be aroused because of his excessive alcohol and drug use the 
previous night.  Romer and A.L. also used cocaine together.  Although Romer 
denied that he pressured A.L. to use cocaine, he stipulated that if she were called to 
testify, she would state that she was hesitant to use the cocaine but felt pressured to 
do so. 
{¶ 9} While A.L. was still at Romer’s residence, Rankin attempted to extort 
additional money from Romer through A.L.  Rankin had A.L. tell Romer that she 
was only 15 years old and threaten to report Romer for criminal activity if he did 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO 
 
4 
not pay additional money to Rankin.  Romer paid an additional $200 and A.L. left 
his residence. 
{¶ 10} Later that day, A.L. was involved in a traffic accident.  As a result 
of police involvement in the accident, A.L. was identified as a missing juvenile and 
was recovered by the Cuyahoga Regional Human Trafficking Task Force.  During 
a forensic interview, A.L. disclosed that she had been trafficked by Rankin and 
reported the arrangement that Rankin had made with Romer. 
{¶ 11} Rankin was later charged with multiple federal crimes.  In January 
2022, Romer testified against Rankin on behalf of the federal government.  Later 
that year, Rankin was convicted on all charges. 
{¶ 12} In summer 2020, Romer relapsed and began drinking again.  
Following a conviction for disorderly conduct based on his intoxication, he 
completed two inpatient treatment programs.  He remained sober from October 
2020 until December 2021, when he learned that because of his conduct with A.L., 
he would be charged with a felony and his law license would be suspended. 
{¶ 13} In January 2022, Romer pleaded guilty to a third-degree felony count 
of attempted corrupting another with drugs and a first-degree misdemeanor count 
of soliciting.  He also commenced an inpatient sober-living program and has been 
sober since January 10, 2022. 
{¶ 14} Romer was sentenced to 36 months in prison followed by a 
discretionary period of postrelease control of up to two years.  He entered prison 
on February 22, 2022.  Romer’s prison records document his participation in 
multiple programs, including some focused on criminal attitudes, behavioral 
patterns, family and social support, substance abuse, and mental health, and his 
regular attendance at Alcoholics Anonymous and Narcotics Anonymous meetings. 
{¶ 15} On this evidence, the parties stipulated that Romer’s conduct 
violated Prof.Cond.R. 8.4(b) (prohibiting a lawyer from committing an illegal act 
that reflects adversely on the lawyer’s honesty or trustworthiness) and 8.4(h) 
January Term, 2023 
 
5 
(prohibiting a lawyer from engaging in conduct that adversely reflects on the 
lawyer’s fitness to practice law).  The board found that those violations had been 
proven by clear and convincing evidence and made a separate finding that Romer’s 
criminal convictions were sufficiently egregious to support the Prof.Cond.R. 8.4(h) 
violation.  See Disciplinary Counsel v. Bricker, 137 Ohio St.3d 35, 2013-Ohio-
3998, 997 N.E.2d 500, ¶ 21.  We adopt the board’s findings of misconduct. 
RECOMMENDED SANCTION 
{¶ 16} 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. 
{¶ 17} The parties stipulated and the board found that two aggravating 
factors are present in this case: Romer acted with a dishonest or selfish motive, and 
a vulnerable victim suffered harm as result of Romer’s misconduct.  See Gov.Bar 
R. V(13)(B)(2) and (8).  As for mitigating factors, the parties stipulated and the 
board agreed that Romer had a clean disciplinary record and that he had made full 
and free disclosure to the board and exhibited a cooperative attitude toward the 
disciplinary proceedings, submitted evidence of his good character and reputation, 
had other penalties or sanctions imposed for his misconduct, and engaged in other 
interim rehabilitation.  See Gov.Bar R. V(13)(C)(1), (4), (5), (6), and (8). 
{¶ 18} The parties jointly recommended that Romer be indefinitely 
suspended for his misconduct with no credit for the time served under his interim 
suspension.  After considering several cases cited by the parties, the board agreed 
that the parties’ proposed sanction is the appropriate sanction in this case. 
{¶ 19} “When a lawyer engages in or attempts to engage in sexually 
motivated conduct with an underage victim, an indefinite suspension of the 
lawyer’s license to practice is appropriate.”  Disciplinary Counsel v. Goldblatt, 118 
Ohio St.3d 310, 2008-Ohio-2458, 888 N.E.2d 1091, ¶ 18.  In Goldblatt, an attorney 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO 
 
6 
attempted to arrange a sexual encounter with an undercover FBI agent whom he 
believed to be an underage girl.  Id. at ¶ 6.  We indefinitely suspended him from the 
practice of law and afforded him no credit for the time served under his interim 
suspension.  Id. at ¶ 30.  We have imposed that sanction in a number of cases in 
which the misconduct consisted of sexual offenses involving minors.  See, e.g., 
Disciplinary Counsel v. Cosgrove, 165 Ohio St.3d 280, 2021-Ohio-2188, 178 
N.E.3d 481, ¶ 3-5 (attorney participated in an online chat and arranged to meet a 
person he believed to be a 15-year-old girl for sexual activity); Disciplinary 
Counsel v. Schwarz, 160 Ohio St.3d 194, 2020-Ohio-1542, 155 N.E.3d 830, ¶ 2-3, 
6 (attorney exchanged sexually-charged text messages with and solicited an 
undercover officer posing as a 15-year-old boy); Dayton Bar Assn. v. Greenberg, 
135 Ohio St.3d 430, 2013-Ohio-1723, 988 N.E.2d 559, ¶ 2-4 (attorney convicted 
on federal charges of possessing child pornography and transmitting obscene 
material to minors); Disciplinary Counsel v. Andrews, 124 Ohio St.3d 523, 2010-
Ohio-931, 924 N.E.2d 829, ¶ 2, 12 (attorney solicited sexual activity in online 
conversations with adult posing as a 13-year-old girl).  When an attorney has 
committed sex crimes, an indefinite suspension protects the public, deters other 
attorneys from engaging in similar wrongdoing, and preserves the public’s trust in 
the legal profession; it also leaves open the possibility that the attorney may one 
day be rehabilitated and able to resume the competent, ethical, and professional 
practice of law.  See, e.g., Disciplinary Counsel v. Grossman, 143 Ohio St.3d 302, 
2015-Ohio-2340, 37 N.E.3d 155, ¶ 12. 
{¶ 20} Although Romer’s cooperation with federal authorities enabled him 
to secure a plea to offenses that do not reflect the fact that his conduct included 
sexual contact with a minor, he does not dispute that he engaged in such conduct.  
Based on the facts of this case, the aggravating and mitigating factors present, and 
our precedent, we find that an indefinite suspension with no credit for the time 
January Term, 2023 
 
7 
served under his interim suspension is the appropriate sanction for Romer’s 
misconduct. 
CONCLUSION 
{¶ 21} Accordingly, Shawn Alexander Romer is indefinitely suspended 
from the practice of law in Ohio with no credit for the time served under his interim 
felony suspension.  Costs are taxed to Romer. 
Judgment accordingly. 
KENNEDY, C.J., and FISCHER, DEWINE, DONNELLY, STEWART, BRUNNER, 
and DETERS, JJ., concur. 
_________________ 
Joseph M. Caligiuri, Disciplinary Counsel, and Karen H. Osmond, Assistant 
Disciplinary Counsel, for relator. 
Dunson Law, L.L.C., and Joseph P. Dunson, for respondent. 
_________________