Title: Disciplinary Counsel v. Detweiler

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. Detweiler, Slip Opinion No. 2010-Ohio-5033.] 
 
 
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. 2010-OHIO-5033 
DISCIPLINARY COUNSEL v. DETWEILER. 
[Until this opinion appears in the Ohio Official Reports advance sheets, it 
may be cited as Disciplinary Counsel v. Detweiler,  
Slip Opinion No. 2010-Ohio-5033.] 
Attorney misconduct, including representing a client when there was a substantial 
risk that the attorney’s ability to represent the client was materially 
limited by his own personal interests — Public reprimand. 
(No. 2010-1104 — Submitted August 10, 2010 — Decided October 21, 2010.) 
ON CERTIFIED REPORT by the Board of Commissioners on Grievances and 
Discipline of the Supreme Court, No. 10-014. 
__________________ 
Per Curiam. 
{¶ 1} Respondent, William Jeffrey Detweiler of Akron, Ohio, Attorney 
Registration No. 0039269, was admitted to the practice of law in Ohio in 1987. 
On February 8, 2010, relator, Disciplinary Counsel, charged respondent with 
violating the Rules of Professional Conduct by engaging in a sexual relationship 
with a client.  A panel of the Board of Commissioners on Grievances and 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO 
2 
 
Discipline considered the cause on the parties’ consent-to-discipline agreement, 
filed pursuant to Section 11 of the Rules and Regulations Governing Procedure on 
Complaints and Hearings Before the Board of Commissioners on Grievances and 
Discipline of the Supreme Court (“BCGD Proc.Reg.”)  The panel accepted the 
agreement, concurred in the agreed sanction, and recommended that the board 
accept the agreement, which the board did.  We, too, accept the agreement, and 
we publicly reprimand respondent for his misconduct. 
Misconduct 
{¶ 2} The stipulated facts of this case show that in April 2008, a female 
client retained respondent to represent her in her divorce.  In May 2008, while the 
divorce was pending, respondent and his client began expressing romantic and 
sexual feelings toward one another in person and by telephone and e-mail.  The 
following month they had a sexual encounter in the client’s car.  They continued 
to exchange sexual e-mails in July and August, and the sexual relationship ended 
in September 2008.  Respondent, however, continued to represent the client in her 
divorce case until she terminated his services in July 2009. 
{¶ 3} The parties have stipulated that respondent’s improper sexual 
relationship with his client 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), 1.7(a)(2) (providing 
that a lawyer’s continued representation of a client creates a conflict of interest if 
there is a substantial risk that the lawyer’s ability to represent the client will be 
materially limited by the lawyer's own personal interests), and 8.4(h) (prohibiting 
a lawyer from engaging in conduct that adversely reflects on the lawyer's fitness 
to practice law). 
Sanction 
{¶ 4} In recommending that we accept the agreed sanction for 
respondent’s misconduct, the board considered the aggravating and mitigating 
January Term, 2010 
3 
 
factors listed in Section 10 of the Rules and Regulations Governing Procedure on 
Complaints and Hearings Before the Board of Commissioners on Grievances and 
Discipline (“BCGD Proc.Reg”).  In mitigation, the parties have stipulated that 
respondent does not have a prior disciplinary record and that he has displayed a 
cooperative attitude toward the disciplinary proceedings.  BCGD Proc.Reg. 
10(B)(2)(a) and (d).  There is no evidence of any aggravating factors.  See BCGD 
Proc.Reg. 10(B)(1). 
{¶ 5} We have publicly reprimanded attorneys for having sexual 
relationships with clients when the relationships are legal, consensual, and have 
not compromised the clients’ interests.  See, e.g., Cincinnati Bar Assn. v. Schmalz, 
123 Ohio St.3d 130, 2009-Ohio-4159, 914 N.E.2d 1024, ¶ 9; Disciplinary 
Counsel v. Engler, 110 Ohio St.3d 138, 2006-Ohio-3824, 851 N.E.2d 502 ¶ 12-
13.  Therefore, we conclude that the recommended sanction is appropriate. 
{¶ 6} Accordingly, respondent is publicly reprimanded for his violations 
of Prof.Cond.R. 1.7(a)(2), 1.8(j), and 8.4(h).  Costs are taxed to respondent. 
Judgment accordingly. 
 
BROWN, 
C.J., 
and 
PFEIFER, 
LUNDBERG 
STRATTON, 
O’CONNOR, 
O’DONNELL, LANZINGER, and CUPP, JJ., concur. 
__________________ 
Jonathan E. Coughlan, Disciplinary Counsel, and Philip A. King, Assistant 
Disciplinary Counsel, for relator. 
Charles E. Grisi, for respondent. 
______________________