Title: Disciplinary Counsel v. Schwarz

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. Schwarz, Slip Opinion No. 2020-Ohio-1542.] 
 
 
 
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. 2020-OHIO-1542 
DISCIPLINARY COUNSEL v. SCHWARZ. 
[Until this opinion appears in the Ohio Official Reports advance sheets, it 
may be cited as Disciplinary Counsel v. Schwarz, Slip Opinion No.  
2020-Ohio-1542.] 
Attorneys—Misconduct—Violations of the Rules of Professional Conduct—
Indefinite suspension. 
(No. 2019-1738—Submitted January 29, 2020—Decided April 22, 2020.) 
ON CERTIFIED REPORT by the Board of Professional Conduct of the Supreme 
Court, No. 2019-033. 
_______________________ 
Per Curiam. 
{¶ 1} Respondent, Harold McClure Schwarz III, of Akron, Ohio, Attorney 
Registration No. 0078072, was admitted to the practice of law in Ohio in 2004.  On 
March 22, 2019, we suspended his license on an interim basis after receiving notice 
that he had been convicted of importuning in violation of R.C. 2907.07, a fifth-
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO 
 
2
degree felony.  See In re Schwarz, 156 Ohio St.3d 1272, 2019-Ohio-972, 126 
N.E.3d 1197. 
{¶ 2} In June 2019, relator, disciplinary counsel, charged Schwarz with 
violating the Rules of Professional Conduct based on the facts that led to his felony 
conviction.  Schwarz stipulated to the charged misconduct, and the parties jointly 
recommended that he serve an indefinite suspension, with no credit for the time he 
has served under his interim felony suspension.  After a hearing before a three-
member panel of the Board of Professional Conduct, the board issued a report 
finding that Schwarz had engaged in the stipulated misconduct and recommending 
that we adopt the parties’ proposed sanction.  The board also recommends that we 
condition Schwarz’s future reinstatement on his compliance with the terms of his 
probation and with the contract he entered into with the Ohio Lawyers Assistance 
Program (“OLAP”).  Neither party has objected to the board’s report. 
{¶ 3} Based on our review of the record, we adopt the board’s findings of 
misconduct and recommended sanction. 
Misconduct 
{¶ 4} In October 2018, a Portage County grand jury charged Schwarz in a 
two-count indictment with importuning in violation of R.C. 2907.07, a fifth-degree 
felony, and attempted unlawful sexual conduct with a minor in violation of R.C. 
2923.02 and 2907.04, a fourth-degree felony.  Count one of the indictment alleged 
that Schwarz solicited an undercover law-enforcement officer who was posing as a 
15-year-old male and that Schwarz either believed the male was between the ages 
of 13 and 15 or was reckless in that regard.  Count two of the indictment alleged 
that Schwarz attempted to engage in sexual conduct with “John Doe,” the 
undercover law-enforcement officer, who Schwarz believed was 15 years old.  In 
February 2019, Schwarz pleaded guilty to count one and the state dismissed count 
two. 
January Term, 2020 
 
3
{¶ 5} In June 2019, the Portage County Court of Common Pleas designated 
Schwarz a Tier I sex offender and sentenced him to three years of community 
control, with one year under intensive supervised probation followed by two years 
under general supervision.  The court also ordered that he undergo a mental-health 
and sexual-offender evaluation, follow all recommendations resulting from that 
evaluation, and maintain full-time employment throughout the period of his 
probation. 
{¶ 6} At his disciplinary hearing, Schwarz admitted that through an 
application on his mobile phone, he had exchanged sexually charged text messages 
with a person he believed was a minor—but who was actually an undercover law-
enforcement officer—and had also arranged to meet the person at a restaurant.  The 
parties stipulated and the board found that by soliciting the undercover officer 
posing as a 15-year-old male, Schwarz 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) (prohibiting a lawyer from engaging in 
conduct that adversely reflects on the lawyer’s fitness to practice law).  The board 
expressly found that Schwarz’s misconduct was sufficiently egregious to warrant 
finding a separate violation of Prof.Cond.R. 8.4(h).  See Disciplinary Counsel v. 
Bricker, 137 Ohio St.3d 35, 2013-Ohio-3998, 997 N.E.2d 500, ¶ 21. 
{¶ 7} We agree with the board’s findings of misconduct. 
Sanction 
{¶ 8} 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. 
{¶ 9} As aggravating factors, the board found that Schwarz had acted with 
a dishonest or selfish motive and that his conduct, although unsuccessful, was 
directed at a vulnerable teenaged victim.  See Gov.Bar R. V(13)(B)(2) and (8).  The 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO 
 
4
board also noted that Schwarz did not appear to express remorse and that he did not 
appear to understand the gravity of his offense, the vulnerable nature of minors, or 
the potential adverse consequences to them as a result of solicitation offenses.  See 
Gov.Bar R. V(13)(B)(7). 
{¶ 10} As for mitigation, the board found that Schwarz has a clean 
disciplinary record, he had exhibited a cooperative attitude toward the disciplinary 
proceedings, he had presented evidence of his good character and reputation, other 
penalties or sanctions have been imposed for the same misconduct, and he had 
presented evidence of other interim rehabilitation.  See Gov.Bar R. V(13)(C)(1), 
(4), (5), (6), and (8).  Regarding the other rehabilitation, the board noted that a week 
after his arrest, Schwarz began working with a clinical psychologist and that he 
signed an OLAP contract on August 1, 2019, and was in compliance with it. 
{¶ 11} To support the recommended sanction, the parties and the board 
cited Disciplinary Counsel v. Goldblatt, 118 Ohio St.3d 310, 2008-Ohio-2458, 888 
N.E.2d 1091, in which we indefinitely suspended an attorney who had attempted to 
arrange a sexual encounter with a minor.  We held that “[w]hen 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” and that 
“lawyers convicted of felonies stemming from such conduct cannot expect to 
receive credit for an interim [felony] suspension.”  Id. at ¶ 18; see also Disciplinary 
Counsel v. Andrews, 124 Ohio St.3d 523, 2010-Ohio-931, 924 N.E.2d 829 
(indefinitely suspending an attorney, giving no credit for time served under an 
interim felony suspension, for misconduct that included soliciting sexual activity 
from an adult posing as a 13-year-old female). 
{¶ 12} In accordance with Goldblatt, we adopt the recommended sanction.  
Schwarz’s fitness to practice law has been severely undermined by his criminal 
conduct, and “an indefinite suspension will help protect the public, deter other 
January Term, 2020 
 
5
lawyers from similar wrongdoing, and preserve the public’s trust in the legal 
profession.”  Goldblatt at ¶ 30. 
Conclusion 
{¶ 13} Harold McClure Schwarz III is hereby indefinitely suspended from 
the practice of law in the state of Ohio, with no credit for the time he has served 
under his interim felony suspension imposed on March 22, 2019.  In addition to his 
meeting the requirements of Gov.Bar R. V(25), Schwarz’s reinstatement shall be 
conditioned on his demonstrating that he has complied with (1) the terms of the 
probation imposed in his criminal case and (2) his August 1, 2019 OLAP contract.  
Costs are taxed to Schwarz. 
Judgment accordingly. 
O’CONNOR, C.J., and KENNEDY, FRENCH, FISCHER, DEWINE, DONNELLY, 
and STEWART, JJ., concur. 
_________________ 
Joseph M. Caligiuri, Disciplinary Counsel, for relator. 
Crabbe, Brown & James, L.L.P., Larry H. James, and Rachel A. Rinehardt, 
for respondent. 
_________________