OPINIONS OF THE SUPREME COURT OF OHIO 

 

 **** SUBJECT TO FURTHER EDITING **** 

 The full texts of the opinions of the Supreme Court of 

Ohio are being transmitted electronically beginning May 27, 

1992, pursuant to a pilot project implemented by Chief Justice 

Thomas J. Moyer. 

 Please call any errors to the attention of the Reporter's 

Office of the Supreme Court of Ohio. Attention: Walter S. 

Kobalka, Reporter, or Deborah J. Barrett, Administrative 

Assistant. Tel.: (614) 466-4961; in Ohio 1-800-826-9010. 

Your comments on this pilot project are also welcome. 

 NOTE: Corrections may be made by the Supreme Court to the 

full texts of the opinions after they have been released 

electronically to the public. The reader is therefore advised 

to check the bound volumes of Ohio St.3d published by West 

Publishing Company for the final versions of these opinions. 

The advance sheets to Ohio St.3d will also contain the volume 

and page numbers where the opinions will be found in the bound 

volumes of the Ohio Official Reports. 

 

Office of Disciplinary Counsel v. Talbert. 

[Cite as Disciplinary Counsel v. Talbert (1994), Ohio 

St.3d .] 

Attorneys at law -- Misconduct -- Public reprimand -- Engaging 

 in conduct that adversely reflects on fitness to practice 

 law -- Touching a female client and female deputy clerk in 

 a manner that the women found offensive. 

 (No. 94-2300 -- Submitted December 7, 1994 -- Decided 

December 30, 1994.) 

 On Certified Report by the Board of Commissioners on 

Grievances and Discipline of the Supreme Court, No. 94-22. 

 By a complaint filed on April 18, 1994, relator, the 

Office of Disciplinary Counsel, charged that respondent, 

Bonford Reed Talbert of Tiffin, Ohio, Attorney Registration No. 

0023911, had, between 1980 and 1993, committed three separate 

acts of misconduct, and that he had thereby violated DR 

1-102(A)(3)(engaging in illegal conduct involving moral 

turpitude), 1-102(A)(5)(engaging in conduct prejudicial to the 

administration of justice), 1-102(A)(6)(engaging in conduct 

that adversely reflects on his fitness to practice law), and 

Canons 1, 2, 2A and 3(A)(3) of the Code of Judicial Conduct. 

Respondent was served with the complaint, and filed an answer 

denying for lack of present recollection most of the facts of 

the complaint, and raising the affirmative defenses of laches, 

as to the first and third counts of the complaint, and lack of 

jurisdiction over respondent as a lawyer more than fourteen 

years after the events which are alleged to have occurrred 

while respondent was a judge. 

 The matter was submitted to a panel of the Board of 

Commissioners on Grievances and Discipline of the Supreme Court 

("board") without oral hearing and upon the joint stipulation 

of the parties. The joint stipulation offers no facts 

regarding count one of the complaint. Regarding count two of 

the complaint, the stipulation reflects that in 1993, 

respondent met with a female potential client at his law office 
in Tiffin, Ohio to discuss her workers' compensation case. 

After the meeting, respondent advised the client that he needed 

additional documentation to pursue her claim. A second meeting 

was scheduled. At the second meeting the client became upset 

over the possibility that she might lose her job. When the 

client rose to leave, respondent accompanied her to the door, 

where he put his arm around the client and said that "he wanted 

to help her." The client perceived respondent's statement as 

sexually suggestive, although respondent did not touch her in 

any place normally associated with sexual contact. Considering 

the totality of the circumstances, the client believed that the 

respondent was going to kiss her. Inasmuch as the conduct was 

uninvited, the client pulled away from respondent and 

departed. There was no further contact between respondent and 

the client. 

 Regarding the third count of the complaint, the joint 

stipulation reflects that from June of 1978 until January of 

1981, a certain female deputy clerk handled criminal cases at 

the Tiffin Municipal Court at the same time respondent was a 

judge of the Tiffin Municipal Court. On two occasions, in 

April 1980, and again in October 1980, the clerk maintains that 

respondent touched her in a manner that she found offensive. 

Respondent does not recall details of the incidents. However, 

for purposes of these proceedings, respondent admits touching 

the client and the clerk in a manner that the women found 

offensive, and that such conduct adversely reflects upon his 

fitness to practice law. Attached to the joint stipulation 

were several letters from respondent's current and former 

friends and associates attesting to his legal ability, personal 

integrity, and professionalism. 

 Based on the joint stipulation, the panel found a 

violation of DR 1-102(A)(6). It then recommended the sanction 

recommended by the parties in the joint stipulation: a public 

reprimand. The board adopted the panel's findings and its 

recommendation, and also recommended that the costs of these 

proceedings be taxed to the respondent. 

 

 Geoffrey Stern, Disciplinary Counsel, and Alvin E. 

Mathews, Assistant Disciplinary Counsel, for relator. 

Mark H. Aultman, for respondent. 

 Per Curiam. Having thoroughly reviewed the record, we 

agree with the board's finding of misconduct and its 

recommendations. Accordingly, respondent is hereby publicly 

reprimanded. Costs taxed to respondent. 

 Judgment accordingly. 

 Moyer, C.J., A.W. Sweeney, Douglas, Wright, Resnick and 

F.E. Sweeney, JJ., concur. 

 Pfeifer, J., dissents. 

 Pfeifer, J., dissenting. The facts as presented in this 

case do not merit disciplinary action. However, respondent did 

agree with the relator's recommendation of a public reprimand. 

If there are some other facts that yielded this result, they 

should be revealed to this court. If not, the case should be 

dismissed.