[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—Oneyear 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 exwife, 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.

_________________