[Until this opinion appears in the Ohio Official Reports advance sheets, it may be cited as 

Disciplinary Counsel v. Owen, Slip Opinion No. 2014-Ohio-4597.] 

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. 2014-OHIO-4597 

DISCIPLINARY COUNSEL v. OWEN. 

[Until this opinion appears in the Ohio Official Reports advance sheets, 

it may be cited as Disciplinary Counsel v. Owen, 

Slip Opinion No. 2014-Ohio-4597.] 

Attorneys—Misconduct—Sexual relations with wife of client who attorney was 

representing in death-penalty case—Lawyer who engages in sexual 

relationship with client’s spouse during representation creates inherent 

and impermissible conflict of interest—Two-year suspension, one year 

stayed on conditions.

(No. 2013-1981—Submitted February 5, 2014—Decided October 22, 2014.) 

ON CERTIFIED REPORT by the Board of Commissioners on Grievances and 

Discipline of the Supreme Court, No. 2012-019. 

_______________________ 

Per Curiam. 

{¶ 1} Respondent, James David Owen of Columbus, Ohio, Attorney 

Registration No. 0003525, was admitted to the practice of law in Ohio in 1979. 

On April 6, 2012, relator, disciplinary counsel, filed a one-count complaint 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO

2

charging Owen with violations of the Code of Professional Responsibility1

alleging that Owen had engaged in misconduct in his representation of Robert 

Caulley in a criminal matter. Specifically, relator alleged that Owen had had a 

sexual relationship with Caulley’s wife while he represented Caulley in a 

prosecution for aggravated murder with death-penalty specifications and other 

offenses, including aggravated robbery. 

{¶ 2} Owen stipulated to the material facts of relator’s complaint and 

admitted that his conduct violated DR 5-101(A)(1) (prohibiting a lawyer from 

accepting employment if the exercise of the lawyer’s professional judgment will 

be or reasonably may be affected by the lawyer’s personal interests), 1-102(A)(5) 

(prohibiting a lawyer from engaging in conduct that is prejudicial to the 

administration of justice), and 1-102(A)(6) (prohibiting a lawyer from engaging in 

conduct that adversely reflects on the lawyer’s fitness to practice law). The 

parties stipulated that a two-year suspension is the appropriate sanction, but Owen 

asked that a portion of the suspension be stayed. 

{¶ 3} Owen and five other witnesses testified at a hearing before a panel 

of the Board of Commissioners on Grievances and Discipline. The panel 

concluded that Owen had violated the above rules and recommended that Owen 

be suspended from the practice of law in Ohio for two years, with one year stayed 

on condition that Owen fulfill the terms of his contract with the Ohio Lawyers 

Assistance Program (“OLAP”) and commit no further misconduct. The board 

adopted the panel’s findings of fact, conclusions of law, and recommended 

sanction. 

{¶ 4} Having thoroughly reviewed the record, we adopt the board’s 

findings of fact, conclusions of law, and recommended sanction. 

 

1

 Relator charged Owen with misconduct under applicable rules for acts occurring before February 

1, 2007, the effective date of the Rules of Professional Conduct, which superseded the 

Disciplinary Rules of the Code of Professional Responsibility. 
January Term, 2014 

3

Misconduct

{¶ 5} Owen’s law practice consisted primarily of criminal defense, 

including extensive experience with capital cases. In early January 1997, Owen 

received a call from Robert Caulley’s mother-in-law telling him that Caulley had 

recently confessed to killing his parents in an apparent robbery in 1994. The 

Caulleys’ estate had been sizeable, and Robert’s confession nearly three years 

after their deaths prompted their executor to threaten to try to recoup the portion 

of the estate Robert had inherited. Caulley’s mother-in-law asked Owen to 

research and investigate a defense of false confession should the executor file suit, 

and Owen agreed to do that. 

{¶ 6} As a result of his confession, Caulley was charged with two counts 

of aggravated murder with death-penalty specifications and other offenses, 

including aggravated robbery. Counsel was appointed to defend him in his 

criminal case. In May 1997, the trial judge, who knew that Owen was working on 

an aspect of the case, nullified Caulley’s indigency status, removed his courtappointed lawyers, and designated Owen as his counsel in the criminal case. 

Owen officially began representing Caulley, as his sole counsel, in the case in 

mid-June 1997, and the trial began approximately three months later. 

{¶ 7} In late June or early July 1997, Caulley’s wife relocated from 

Texas to the Columbus area and immediately began working in Owen’s office, 

assisting with various tasks associated with her husband’s case. Approximately a 

week to ten days before the trial began, Owen and Caulley’s wife began a sexual 

relationship that lasted throughout the trial and continued until late August or 

early September 1998. 

{¶ 8} Caulley’s trial began on September 12, 1997, and lasted through 

October 20, 1997. A jury found him not guilty of both the aggravated-murder 

charges and not guilty of the aggravated-robbery charge. The jury found him 

guilty of the lesser offenses of voluntary manslaughter in the death of his father 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO

4

and noncapital murder in his mother’s death. Caulley was sentenced to 10 to 25 

years’ imprisonment on the manslaughter charge and 15 years to life on the 

murder charge, to be served consecutively. His conviction was affirmed on direct 

appeal in 2002, State v. Caulley, 10th Dist. No. 97AP-1590 (Mar. 14, 2002), and 

we declined his appeal. 96 Ohio St.3d 1467, 2002-Ohio-3910, 772 N.E.2d 1203. 

Although Owen worked with Caulley’s appellate attorneys, he never told them 

about his affair with Caulley’s wife. 

{¶ 9} Owen told his family members about the affair shortly after it 

ended in late summer 1998. At no point did Owen inform his client, Caulley, of 

the affair. Instead, Caulley learned about it years later, long after he and his wife 

were divorced, from his sister and another woman. Caulley assumed that the 

affair had occurred posttrial, but in January 2011, his former wife told him that it 

had begun before his trial and continued during and after the trial. 

{¶ 10} In April 2011, the Ohio Public Defender called Owen to inform 

him that Caulley would be filing a motion for a new trial based on Owen’s sexual 

relationship with Mrs. Caulley. Owen admitted to his misconduct and agreed to 

cooperate in that endeavor. Following that conversation, Owen provided the 

public defender an affidavit detailing his misconduct that was later filed with 

Caulley’s motion for a new trial. Following a hearing, at which Owen was not 

called to testify, the court granted the motion. The state moved for leave to 

appeal the trial court’s decision, but the motion was denied by the Tenth District 

Court of Appeals, and that judgment was affirmed by this court on authority of 

State v. Forrest, 136 Ohio St.3d 134, 2013-Ohio-2409, 991 N.E.2d 1124. 136 

Ohio St.3d 325, 2013-Ohio-3673, 995 N.E.2d 227. 

{¶ 11} On May 16, 2011, Owen reported his misconduct to relator, and on 

January 19, 2012, he signed a five-year contract with OLAP. He began treatment 

with a psychiatrist and psychologist for depression, anxiety, and a previously 

diagnosed severe attention-deficit disorder (“ADD”). 
January Term, 2014 

5

{¶ 12} The board adopted these stipulated facts and found that Owen’s 

conduct violated DR 5-101(A)(1), 1-102(A)(5), and 1-102(A)(6) as charged in the 

complaint. 

Sanction 

{¶ 13} When imposing sanctions for attorney misconduct, we consider 

relevant factors, including the ethical duties that the lawyer violated and the 

sanctions imposed in similar cases. Stark Cty. Bar Assn. v. Buttacavoli, 96 Ohio 

St.3d 424, 2002-Ohio-4743, 775 N.E.2d 818, ¶ 16. In making a final 

determination, we also weigh evidence of the aggravating and mitigating factors 

listed in BCGD Proc.Reg. 10(B). Disciplinary Counsel v. Broeren, 115 Ohio 

St.3d 473, 2007-Ohio-5251, 875 N.E.2d 935, ¶ 21. 

{¶ 14} The board found two aggravating factors—a selfish motive and 

harm to a vulnerable client. See BCGD Proc.Reg. 10(B)(1)(b) and (h). As 

mitigating factors, the board found that Owen had no prior disciplinary record, 

had provided full and free disclosure to relator and displayed a cooperative 

attitude toward the disciplinary proceedings, and had a good character and 

reputation aside from the charged misconduct. See BCGD Proc.Reg. 10(B)(2)(a), 

(d), and (e). 

{¶ 15} Owen explained at the disciplinary hearing that the affair came 

about at a time in which he was representing Caulley in an intense and 

complicated death-penalty case without the assistance of co-counsel. Although he 

had known since 1993 that he had ADD and had attempted numerous medications 

to treat that ailment, he was not taking any prescription medications as he 

prepared for Caulley’s trial because his preferred medication had been found to be 

lethal to some patients, and nothing else worked. He admitted that he had an 

alcohol problem and suffered from depression, which, combined with the ADD, 

not only impaired his judgment and contributed to the decision to start the affair, 

but also were exacerbated by the stress of the affair. 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO

6

{¶ 16} Throughout the disciplinary process, Owen accepted full 

responsibility for his misconduct. Although he told his family about the affair, he 

testified that he did not tell his client because Mrs. Caulley claimed that she had 

told her husband, her sister-in-law, and her mother. He explained that his focus 

had been on winning the case, and he convinced himself at the time that because 

he had done such a good job, the outcome would not have been different even had 

he admitted the conflict of interest to the court. At his disciplinary hearing, Owen 

acknowledged that this decision should have been made by the client and that his 

analysis of the situation had been wrong because his client ultimately did get a 

new trial. 

{¶ 17} After Owen admitted the affair to his family, he began seeing a 

psychiatrist. In 2001 he resumed taking the more effective (but potentially lethal) 

medication to treat his ADD. When it was taken off the market in 2005, he was 

once again left without an effective medication for his ADD. When the affair 

became public, his stress began mounting, and he approached OLAP in 2011, 

executed a five-year contract, and began seeing a psychiatrist and a psychologist. 

He continues to see the psychologist twice a month. After the state public 

defender’s inquiry into his conduct, Owen retained counsel and then wrote relator 

reporting his misconduct. He provided assistance to Caulley’s legal team, who 

succeeded in overturning Caulley’s convictions and securing his right to a new 

trial. 

{¶ 18} The panel heard testimony from Owen’s family therapist and 

received letters from his psychiatrist and two psychologists, one of whom had 

performed a neuropsychological assessment of Owen. These professionals 

provided the clinical perspective to explain why Owen had engaged in an intimate 

relationship with the wife of his client who was charged with a capital offense. 

Two attorneys, a current judge, and a former judge testified to Owen’s good 
January Term, 2014 

7

character, and he submitted numerous letters attesting to his reputation for skill, 

diligence, and integrity. 

{¶ 19} We understand the effects that mental illness, alcoholism, 

psychological impairments, and dysfunctional upbringings can have on a 

practicing attorney, not to mention the stresses attorneys endure in their day-today lives, both professional and personal. As debilitating as these can be to 

practitioners, however, there are consequences when they lead to misconduct, and 

attorneys will be held accountable. Owen has accepted full responsibility for his 

misconduct. He acknowledges that he had ample time and opportunity to disclose 

the affair to Caulley and later to Caulley’s appellate attorneys, yet he failed to do 

so. He is deeply remorseful for his betrayal of his family, his client, and his 

profession. 

{¶ 20} The board recommends that Owen be suspended from the practice 

of law for two years, with one year stayed on the conditions that he fulfill the 

terms of his contract with OLAP and commit no further misconduct. The board 

acknowledged the unusual circumstances presented by this case and noted that it 

could find no analogous precedent in our prior decisions, though it did find some 

guidance from other jurisdictions. 

{¶ 21} A small body of law exists outside our jurisdiction regarding 

lawyers who have sexual relations with the spouse of a client. But the parties 

have not presented, nor have we found, any case law addressing the specific 

situation presented here—where an attorney has engaged in sexual relations with 

the spouse of a client while representing the client in a capital case. 

{¶ 22} A California appellate court granted a writ of habeas corpus to a 

criminal defendant who, after being convicted of first-degree murder and 

conspiracy to commit murder, discovered that his defense attorney had 

maintained a covert sexual relationship with the defendant’s spouse during his 

first trial and through the guilt phase of the second trial. People v. Singer, 226 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO

8

Cal.App.3d 23, 275 Cal.Rptr. 911 (1990). But it appears that the conduct never 

resulted in disciplinary action against the attorney. Id. at 34 (the attorney’s 

former secretary found, copied, and took to the state bar love letters that the 

client’s wife sent to the attorney, but received no response). 

{¶ 23} In Lawyer Disciplinary Bd. v. Artimez, 208 W.Va. 288, 540 S.E.2d 

156 (2000), a West Virginia lawyer with nearly 20 years of experience began an 

intimate relationship with the wife of his personal-injury client near the time he 

filed the client’s lawsuit. The wife, who had been the client’s girlfriend and driver 

of the vehicle he occupied at the time of the accident, was a third-party defendant 

in the action. Two months after the filing of the lawsuit, the client separated from 

his wife, and the lawyer asked his partner to take over the case, telling both the 

client and the partner that his heavy workload precluded him from continuing the 

representation. When his partner asked him whether he was having an affair with 

the client’s wife, the lawyer denied it, but three months later, the client discovered 

the affair. In exchange for a cash settlement and waiver of his attorney fees, the 

client signed an agreement promising not to report the lawyer to the Lawyer 

Disciplinary Board. Despite this agreement, the client reported the lawyer’s 

conduct to the board. The lawyer was charged with violating several rules, 

including Rule 8.4(d) of the West Virginia Rules of Professional Conduct 

(prohibiting conduct prejudicial to the administration of justice). The Supreme 

Court of Appeals of West Virginia found that the attorney violated Rule 8.4(d) by 

contracting with the client to cover up his unethical behavior. The court imposed 

a public reprimand and an assessment of costs for that violation. 

{¶ 24} With respect to the lawyer’s sexual relationship with his client’s 

wife, however, the court noted that no rule directly prohibited an attorney from 

engaging in a sexual relationship with the client’s spouse. Id. at 301. And while 

the court found that the lawyer’s conduct “implicated” Rule 1.7(b), regarding 

conflicts of interest between a lawyer and client, id., it found that the lawyer 
January Term, 2014 

9

“reasonably did not believe his representation of [the client] to be adversely 

affected by [the] affair,” id. at 302, and “[g]iven the novelty of this charge and the 

fact that lawyers are generally entrusted with resolving the conflicts of interest 

which they inevitably encounter,” declined to impose further discipline based 

upon the affair. Id. at 301. 

{¶ 25} In In re Disciplinary Proceedings Against Gamino, 286 Wis.2d 

558, 707 N.W.2d 132 (2005), an attorney was found to have violated Wisconsin’s 

rules of professional conduct by engaging in sexual relations with two female 

clients. One of the clients was dealing with drug and alcohol dependency and 

facing multiple criminal charges and the loss of her children; the other was the 

mother of a juvenile client. The Supreme Court of Wisconsin found that the 

attorney’s conduct with the juvenile client’s mother violated Wis.S.Ct.R. 

20:1.7(b), which at that time prohibited a lawyer from representing a client if the 

lawyer’s own interests may materially limit that representation, unless the lawyer 

reasonably believes that the representation will not be adversely affected and the 

client consents in writing after consultation. The court further found that by lying 

to disciplinary authorities about the nature of the relationship with the juvenile 

client’s mother, the lawyer violated Wis.S.Ct.R. 20:3.3(a)(1) (prohibiting a lawyer 

from knowingly making a false statement of fact or law to a tribunal). The court 

further found that his affair with the other vulnerable client violated Wis.S.Ct.R. 

20:1.8(k)(2) (now (j)) (prohibiting a lawyer from engaging in a consensual sexual 

relationship with a client unless the relationship predates the representation). The 

court found that this troubling pattern of misconduct warranted “significant 

discipline” and suspended the attorney’s license to practice law for six months. 

Id. at ¶ 56-57. 

{¶ 26} In another Wisconsin case, In re Disciplinary Proceedings Against 

Inglimo, 305 Wis.2d 71, 740 N.W.2d 125 (2007), the attorney’s misconduct 

included two sexual relationships with the wife or girlfriend of a client, both of 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO

10

which involved having sex in the presence of the client. Id. at ¶ 7-8, 36-39, 71-

72. In a different representation, the attorney engaged in an improper substantial 

social relationship with a divorce client’s wife (i.e., the opposing party in the 

divorce proceeding). Id. at ¶ 21-25, 70. The court also found that the attorney 

had committed several trust-account violations involving dishonesty and 

misrepresentation, and that he had engaged in conduct that adversely reflected on 

his fitness to practice by possessing marijuana and delivering it to and using it 

with his clients. The court suspended Inglimo’s law license for three years based 

on these ethical transgressions. Id. at ¶ 97. 

{¶ 27} South Carolina has a number of court decisions in civil matters in 

which attorneys were disciplined for engaging in sexual relationships with the 

spouses of clients. In In re Anonymous Member of South Carolina Bar, 389 S.C. 

462, 699 S.E.2d 693 (2010), the Supreme Court of South Carolina admonished an 

attorney who engaged in a sexual relationship with a client’s wife and held that 

such conduct constitutes a per se violation of S.C.Prof.Cond.R. 1.7. In In re 

Munden, 348 S.C. 231, 559 S.E.2d 589 (2002), and In re Reynolds, 335 S.C. 165, 

515 S.E.2d 927 (1999), the court publicly reprimanded two attorneys—one who 

entered into an adulterous relationship with a client’s spouse and another who had 

sex with a client’s wife on a single occasion, but also entered into a business 

relationship with the client without making required disclosures. And in In re 

Hawkins, 320 S.C. 57, 463 S.E.2d 92 (1995), the court suspended an attorney 

from the practice of law for six months for accepting employment as vice 

president and general counsel of a company owned by his paramour’s husband 

and then giving the husband legal advice that proved detrimental to the husband’s 

financial interests in his ensuing divorce. The court held that by these actions, the 

lawyer violated rules prohibiting conflicts of interest and dishonesty, deceit, and 

misrepresentation. 
January Term, 2014 

11

{¶ 28} And in at least one jurisdiction, an attorney has been disciplined 

for making sexual advances to a client’s spouse in a telephone conversation. See 

People v. Bauder, 941 P.2d 282 (Colo.1997) (publicly censuring attorney who 

solicited prostitution during telephone call with wife of his client in dissolution of 

marriage). 

{¶ 29} Our Rules of Professional Conduct do not specifically address the 

subject of a lawyer having sexual relations with the spouse of a client. As in these 

other jurisdictions, however, we find that a lawyer’s sexual relationship with the 

spouse of a current client creates an inherent conflict of interest. This conflict of 

interest compromises the relationship of trust and confidence between the attorney 

and client. Artimez, 208 W.Va. at 300, 540 S.E.2d 156; In re Anonymous, 389 

S.C. at 465-466, 699 S.E.2d 693. An intimate relationship of this nature 

necessarily implicates our rules governing the acceptance or continuation of legal 

representation when the lawyer’s ability to exercise independent professional 

judgment on the client’s behalf may be compromised, see DR 5-101(A)(1) (for 

conduct occurring before February 1, 2007), or if there is a substantial risk that 

the lawyer’s ability to represent the client will be materially limited by the 

lawyer’s responsibilities to a third person or by the lawyer’s own personal 

interests, see Prof. Cond.R. 1.7(a)(2) and (b) (for conduct occurring on or after 

February 1, 2007). 

{¶ 30} As to attorneys’ sexual relationships with clients, “[w]e have 

consistently disapproved of lawyers engaging in sexual conduct with clients 

where the sexual relationship arises from and occurs during the attorney-client 

relationship.” Cleveland Bar Assn. v. Kodish, 110 Ohio St.3d 162, 2006-Ohio4090, 852 N.E.2d 160, ¶ 66 (citing cases). And in the context of representing a 

client in a criminal matter, we have emphasized: 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO

12

The client’s reliance on the ability of her counsel in a crisis 

situation has the effect of putting the lawyer in a position of 

dominance and the client in a position of dependence and 

vulnerability. The more vulnerable the client, the heavier is the 

obligation upon the attorney not to exploit the situation for his own 

advantage. Whether a client consents to or initiates sexual activity 

with the lawyer, the burden is on the lawyer to ensure that all 

attorney-client dealings remain on a professional level. 

Disciplinary Counsel v. Booher, 75 Ohio St.3d 509, 510, 664 N.E.2d 522 (1996). 

We see no reason to deviate from these principles when the sexual conduct is with 

the spouse of a client rather than the client, for the vulnerability of the client and 

the betrayal of trust are the same. 

{¶ 31} The defendant in a criminal matter is particularly vulnerable, and 

especially so in a capital case, in which the client’s life is at risk. The defendant’s 

spouse in such a case is also very vulnerable. The sexual relationship intrudes into 

the marriage, subjects the client to a double betrayal by the spouse and by the 

lawyer, destroys the trust essential to the attorney-client relationship, erodes 

public confidence in the integrity of the legal profession, and undermines the 

lawyer’s loyalty to the client. In granting a writ of habeas corpus to a man 

convicted of first-degree murder, whose wife had engaged in a sexual relationship 

with his attorney, a California appellate court recognized: 

[T]he relationship here between defense counsel and defendant’s 

wife deprived defendant of his constitutional right to the 

“undivided loyalty and effort” of his attorney. The validity of our 

adversarial system depends upon the guaranty of this “undivided 

loyalty and effort” for every criminal defendant. Given the instant 
January Term, 2014 

13

facts, a defense attorney, in the extreme, might be influenced to see 

his client convicted and imprisoned so that the affair can continue 

or remain undiscovered. More subtle influences could arise where 

the wife is a potential witness in the case * * *. Reluctance to call 

or engage in abrasive confrontation with a witness could 

jeopardize a case as easily as reluctance to vigorously oppose 

counsel on the other side. The attorney could be tempted to avoid 

calling a witness who might impugn his lover’s integrity or 

implicate him or her in the case. Also, it is logical to 

speculate* * * that a defense attorney might forego trial strategies 

that would impose a costly burden on his lover. In other words, 

defense counsel might “pull his punches.” Any of these 

considerations could jeopardize the duty of undivided loyalty owed 

the client. 

 (Citation omitted.) People v. Singer, 226 Cal.App.3d at 40, 275 Cal.Rptr. 911. 

{¶ 32} We agree that the lawyer who engages in a sexual relationship with 

a client’s spouse during the representation creates an inherent and impermissible 

conflict between the interests of the lawyer and those of the client. This conflict 

violates the client’s constitutional right to the effective assistance of counsel, id., 

and undermines public confidence in the criminal justice system. Therefore, we 

find that Owen’s conduct in this matter necessarily violates DR 5-101(A)(1), 1-

102(A)(5), and 1-102(A)(6).2

 

2

 As noted earlier, relator charged Owen with violations of the Disciplinary Rules of the Code of 

Professional Responsibility because his conduct occurred before February 1, 2007, the effective 

date of the Rules of Professional Conduct, which superseded the Code of Professional 

Responsibility. The conduct portrayed in this case is now regulated by Prof.Cond.R. 1.7(a)(2) 

(prohibiting representation if a lawyer’s personal interests will materially limit his ability to carry 

out appropriate action for the client), 1.7(b) (prohibiting the continued representation of a client if 

a conflict of interest would be created, unless the affected client gives informed consent in 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO

14

{¶ 33} The parties have stipulated and the board has found that Owen has 

no prior disciplinary record, that he provided free disclosure to relator during the 

investigation and has displayed a cooperative attitude toward the disciplinary 

proceedings, and that he has demonstrated his good character and reputation. The 

record contains numerous attestations from attorneys, members of the community, 

and judges, including a letter from the founder of an organization whose mission 

is to free from prison those who have been falsely convicted—a cause to which 

Owen has dedicated a substantial amount of time. 

{¶ 34} In light of these findings, the case law discussed above, and 

Owen’s 35-year career representing underserved populations, we believe that the 

board’s recommended sanction—a two-year suspension, with the second year 

stayed on the conditions that Owen fulfill the terms of his contract with OLAP 

and commit no further misconduct—will adequately protect the public from 

future harm. 

{¶ 35} Accordingly, we suspend James David Owen for two years, with 

the second year stayed on the conditions that he fulfill his contract with OLAP 

and engage in no further misconduct. If Owen fails to comply with the conditions 

of the stay, the stay will be lifted, and he will serve the full two-year suspension. 

Costs are taxed to Owen. 

Judgment accordingly. 

PFEIFER, O’DONNELL, LANZINGER, KENNEDY, FRENCH, and O’NEILL, JJ., 

concur. 

O’CONNOR, C.J., dissents and would impose an indefinite suspension. 

__________________ 

 

writing), 8.4(d) (prohibiting a lawyer from engaging in conduct that is prejudicial to the 

administration of justice), and 8.4(h) (prohibiting a lawyer from engaging in conduct that 

adversely reflects on the lawyer’s fitness to practice law). 
January Term, 2014 

15

Scott J. Drexel, Disciplinary Counsel, and Joseph M. Caligiuri, Chief 

Assistant Disciplinary Counsel, for relator. 

Kegler, Brown, Hill & Ritter, Geoffrey Stern, and Rasheeda Khan, for 

respondent. 

__________________