Title: Butler Cty. Bar Assn. v. Williamson

State: ohio

Issuer: Ohio Supreme Court

Document:

[Cite as Butler Cty. Bar Assn. v. Williamson, 117 Ohio St.3d 399, 2008-Ohio-1196.] 
 
 
BUTLER COUNTY BAR ASSOCIATION v. WILLIAMSON. 
[Cite as Butler Cty. Bar Assn. v. Williamson,  
117 Ohio St.3d 399, 2008-Ohio-1196.] 
Attorneys — Misconduct — Conduct prejudicial to the administration of justice — 
Conduct adversely reflecting on fitness to practice law — Engaging in 
conduct involving dishonesty, fraud, deceit, or misrepresentation — 
Neglecting entrusted legal matter — Failure to cooperate in a disciplinary 
investigation — Indefinite suspension. 
(No. 2007-1922 — Submitted December 12, 2007 — Decided March 20, 2008.) 
ON CERTIFIED REPORT by the Board of Commissioners on Grievances and 
Discipline of the Supreme Court, No. 06-089. 
__________________ 
Per Curiam. 
{¶ 1} Respondent, Karl E. Williamson, Attorney Registration No. 
0047204, whose last registered address was in Cincinnati, Ohio, has been 
admitted to the practice of law in Ohio since 1990.  The Board of Commissioners 
on Grievances and Discipline now recommends that we indefinitely suspend 
respondent’s license to practice based on findings that he became intimately 
involved with a client after agreeing to represent her.  On review, we agree that 
respondent committed professional misconduct as found by the board and that an 
indefinite suspension is appropriate. 
{¶ 2} Relator, Butler County Bar Association, charged respondent with 
two counts of misconduct, the first relating to respondent’s affair with his client 
and the second for his failure to appear in response to relator’s investigative 
subpoenas.  Attempts to serve the complaint by certified mail were unsuccessful 
and the mail was unclaimed, and relator served the Clerk of the Supreme Court 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO 
2 
pursuant to Gov.Bar R. V(11)(B) (clerk is agent for service of notice for lawyers 
who conceal their whereabouts).  A master commissioner appointed by the board 
heard the case, made findings of fact and conclusions of law, and recommended 
an indefinite suspension.  The board adopted the master commissioner’s findings 
of misconduct and recommended sanction. 
Misconduct 
Count One 
{¶ 3} In May 2004, respondent agreed to represent a female client in 
proceedings to terminate her marriage before the Butler County Common Pleas 
Court.  He also agreed to help her through a domestic-violence action pending in 
Fairfield Municipal Court.  The client paid respondent $500 toward a requested 
$1,000 fee. 
{¶ 4} Respondent began dating his client shortly after she hired him.  
Their relationship became intimate in the end of May 2004, after the client paid 
the $500 and respondent had appeared at a preliminary hearing in the domestic-
violence case against her husband.  By mid-June 2004, respondent had allowed 
the client and her two children to move in with him.  The client and her children 
continued to reside with respondent until October 2004, when the client and her 
husband reconciled. 
{¶ 5} In a letter to his client dated May 27, 2004, respondent claimed to 
be withdrawing as her lawyer in the divorce or dissolution proceedings.  
Afterward, he began denying their attorney-client relationship in correspondence 
to the lawyer representing her husband, although he continued to assist her in 
secret.  As part of his plan to hide their affair, respondent also directed his client 
not to refer to him in public as her lawyer and promised to have another attorney, 
one of his colleagues, “sign off” on any required papers.  The colleague later 
testified in a deposition that respondent never consulted him about the client. 
January Term, 2008 
3 
{¶ 6} By engaging in an affair with his client and continuing to represent 
her, respondent risked his client’s legal and personal interests for his own 
advantage.  As we said in Disciplinary Counsel v. Sturgeon, 111 Ohio St.3d 285, 
2006-Ohio-5708, 855 N.E.2d 1221, ¶ 25, “[a] lawyer who attempts to engage in a 
sexual relationship with a client * * * puts the lawyer's own personal feelings 
ahead of the objectivity that must be the hallmark of any successful attorney-
client relationship.”  Respondent thereby violated DR 1-102(A)(5) (prohibiting a 
lawyer from engaging in conduct that is prejudicial to the administration of 
justice), 1-102(A)(6) (prohibiting a lawyer from engaging in conduct that 
adversely reflects on the lawyer’s fitness to practice law), and 2-110(B)(2) 
(requiring a lawyer to withdraw from representation when the lawyer knows or it 
is obvious that his or her continued employment will violate a Disciplinary Rule).  
Moreover, by lying to conceal the relationship, respondent violated DR 1-
102(A)(4) (prohibiting a lawyer from engaging in conduct involving fraud, deceit, 
dishonesty, or misrepresentation). 
Count Two 
{¶ 7} The client and her husband filed grievances against respondent.  In 
investigating their claims, relator subpoenaed respondent to appear twice, once in 
November 2005 and again in February 2006.  Respondent did not comply with 
either subpoena.  He thereby violated Gov.Bar R. V(4)(G) (requiring a lawyer to 
cooperate in an investigation of misconduct). 
Sanction 
{¶ 8} “We have consistently disapproved of lawyers engaging in sexual 
conduct with clients where the sexual relationship arises from and occurs during 
the attorney-client relationship.  A lawyer's sexual involvement with a client has 
warranted a range of disciplinary measures depending on the relative impropriety 
of the situation, including actual suspension from the practice of law.” Cleveland 
Bar Assn. v. Kodish, 110 Ohio St.3d 162, 2006-Ohio-4090, 852 N.E.2d 160, ¶ 66.  
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO 
4 
Moreover, a lawyer’s failure to cooperate in a disciplinary investigation, in and of 
itself, may warrant an actual suspension from practice.  See, e.g., Disciplinary 
Counsel v. Hofelich, 115 Ohio St.3d 14, 2007-Ohio-4269, 873 N.E.2d 821 
(lawyer suspended for six months for failing to respond to initial inquiries about a 
client grievance); Cleveland Bar Assn. v. James, 109 Ohio St.3d 310, 2006-Ohio-
2424, 847 N.E.2d 438 (lawyer suspended for one year for his “utter lack of 
cooperation” during the disciplinary process). 
{¶ 9} To determine the appropriate sanction, however, we must also 
weigh the aggravating and mitigating factors of respondent’s case.  See Section 
10 of the Rules and Regulations Governing Procedure in Complaints and 
Hearings Before the Board of Commissioners on Grievances and Discipline 
(“BCGD Proc.Reg.”). 
{¶ 10} We accept the board’s findings regarding aggravating factors.  
Respondent attempted to mislead relator by reporting during the investigation that 
his client was actually represented by independent counsel. See BCGD Proc.Reg. 
10(B)(1)(f) (prohibiting the submission of false evidence during the disciplinary 
process).  He also changed the date of the letter purporting to terminate his 
professional relationship with his client so that it appeared to coincide with a date 
after his last appearance in court on her behalf.  Moreover, respondent’s license to 
practice has been under suspension since December 5, 2005, for his failure to 
properly register as an attorney pursuant to Gov.Bar R. VI.  See In re Williamson, 
107 Ohio St.3d 1431, 2005-Ohio-6408, 838 N.E.2d 671.  No mitigating evidence 
dissuades us from imposing the recommended indefinite suspension. 
{¶ 11} Respondent is therefore indefinitely suspended from the practice of 
law in Ohio.  Costs are taxed to respondent. 
Judgment accordingly. 
 
MOYER, 
C.J., 
and 
PFEIFER, 
LUNDBERG 
STRATTON, 
O’CONNOR, 
LANZINGER, and CUPP, JJ., concur. 
January Term, 2008 
5 
 
O’DONNELL, J., dissents. 
__________________ 
Bennett A. Manning, for relator. 
______________________