Court Opinion

ID: 9950049
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2024-03-13 13:11:24.842433+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T14:35:12.877987
License: Public Domain

[Until this opinion appears in the Ohio Official Reports advance sheets, it may be cited as
Disciplinary Counsel v. Bell, Slip Opinion No. 2024-Ohio-876.]

                                        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. 2024-OHIO-876
                          DISCIPLINARY COUNSEL v. BELL.
  [Until this opinion appears in the Ohio Official Reports advance sheets, it
         may be cited as Disciplinary Counsel v. Bell, Slip Opinion No.
                                    2024-Ohio-876.]
Attorneys—Misconduct—Violation of Rules of Professional Conduct—Indefinite
        suspension with no time credited for interim suspension is appropriate
        sanction for attorney convicted of a felony stemming from attempt to engage
        in sexually motivated conduct with underage victim.
     (No. 2023-0739—Submitted July 18, 2023—Decided March 13, 2024.)
   ON CERTIFIED REPORT by the Board of Professional Conduct of the Supreme
                                 Court, No. 2022-043.
                                 __________________
        KENNEDY, C.J.
        {¶ 1} Respondent, Joseph Michael Bell, of Warren, Ohio, Attorney
Registration No. 0095600, was admitted to the practice of law in Ohio in 2016. On
June 2, 2022, this court suspended his license on an interim basis following his
                             SUPREME COURT OF OHIO

felony conviction on one count of unlawful use of a telecommunications device,
and that suspension remains in effect. See In re Bell, 167 Ohio St.3d 1219, 2022-
Ohio-1836, 191 N.E.3d 467.
       {¶ 2} In an October 2022 complaint, relator, disciplinary counsel, charged
Bell with professional misconduct arising from his felony conviction. Bell waived
a probable-cause determination and, in his answer, admitted some of relator’s
factual allegations. The parties jointly submitted comprehensive stipulations of
fact, misconduct, and aggravating and mitigating factors, though they did not agree
on a recommended sanction.
       {¶ 3} After conducting a hearing, a panel of the Board of Professional
Conduct issued a report finding that Bell had committed the charged misconduct
and recommended that we suspend Bell for two years with six months’ credit for
the time he had served under his interim felony suspension and that we place certain
conditions on his reinstatement to the profession. The board adopted the panel’s
findings of fact and conclusions of law and recommends that we suspend Bell from
the practice of law for two years with six months’ credit for the time served under
his interim felony suspension. We adopt the board’s findings of misconduct but
not its recommended sanction. Instead, we impose an indefinite suspension with
no credit for any of the time Bell has served under his interim felony suspension.
                                 MISCONDUCT
       {¶ 4} Bell was hired by the Cuyahoga County Prosecutor’s Office in
February 2020. He served as an assistant prosecutor assigned to the child-support
unit of the juvenile division. While at work on July 30, 2021, Bell visited a website
on his personal phone that listed profiles of sex workers. At 10:27 a.m. that day,
Bell sent a text message to a phone number that he had obtained from a profile on
that website. He believed that he was texting a female sex worker, but he was
actually texting an undercover officer with the Mahoning Valley Human
Trafficking Task Force.

                                         2
                                  January Term, 2024

           {¶ 5} In the course of that text-message exchange, the undercover officer
asked Bell his age and race and told Bell, “[I’]m alot younger than you.” (Spelling
sic.) Bell responded with texts asking, “How young[?]” and added, “If I’m too old
I understand.” The undercover officer replied, “I[’]m 15,” to which Bell responded,
“You’re a little too young.” When the undercover officer protested, Bell responded,
“15 isn’t even legal.” Bell also stated, “I don’t want to be [a jerk] but when
someone that young is involved in this kinda thing I worry they are being forced
against their will.” The undercover officer replied, “Hell no.”
           {¶ 6} At that point, Bell responded, “Okay[.] You sure you aren’t looking
for someone closer to your age[?]”         Then he asked, “How much[?]”         The
undercover officer responded, “[D]epends [on] wat u want daddy.” (Spelling sic.)
Bell requested an hour of “[h]alf and half,” and when prompted by the undercover
officer, Bell explained that that meant “Bj and sex.” The undercover officer quoted
a price of $80 and asked, “[C]ool? [T]ime?” Bell replied, “Yeah. Depends where
are you[?]” The undercover officer told him, “[C]anfield.” Bell responded, “Hmm
wouldn’t likely be able to get there till after 6.” The undercover officer replied,
“[T]hat’s cool jus [sic] [hit me up] around then then.” Although Bell continued
texting the undercover officer after he left work, he did not follow through with the
meeting.
           {¶ 7} On August 5, 2021, the undercover officer text-messaged Bell again
and sent him a photo of a clothed female. Bell replied with a photo of himself with
his dog. Bell told the undercover officer that since she was 15, she was too young
for him to do anything with “besides talk.” The conversation ended without any
plans to meet. That was the last conversation between Bell and the undercover
officer.
           {¶ 8} On August 20, 2021, Bell was arrested at his office in the juvenile
division of the Cuyahoga County Prosecutor’s Office and was simultaneously
terminated from his employment. In November 2021, Bell was indicted on one

                                           3
                             SUPREME COURT OF OHIO

count of importuning in violation of R.C. 2907.07(D)(2), a fifth-degree felony. He
pleaded guilty to an amended count of unlawful use of a telecommunication device
in violation of R.C. 2913.06(A), also a fifth-degree felony, and he was sentenced
to one year of community control. As a condition of that sentence, he was ordered
to continue participating in counseling and taking all medications as prescribed.
       {¶ 9} The parties stipulated, the panel and board found, and we agree that
Bell’s conduct violated Prof.Cond.R. 8.4(b) (prohibiting a lawyer from committing
an illegal act that reflects adversely on the lawyer’s honesty or trustworthiness) and
that his conduct was sufficiently egregious to constitute a separate violation of
Prof.Cond.R. 8.4(h) (prohibiting a lawyer from engaging in conduct that adversely
reflects on the lawyer’s fitness to practice law). See Disciplinary Counsel v.
Bricker, 137 Ohio St.3d 35, 2013-Ohio-3998, 997 N.E.2d 500, ¶ 21.
         RECOMMENDATIONS OF THE PARTIES AND BOARD
       {¶ 10} 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.
       {¶ 11} The parties stipulated and the panel and board found that just one
aggravating factor is present in this case: Bell acted with a dishonest or selfish
motive. See Gov.Bar R. V(13)(B)(2). As for mitigating factors, the parties
stipulated and the panel and board agreed that Bell has a clean disciplinary record,
had made full and free disclosure to the board and exhibited a cooperative attitude
toward the disciplinary proceedings, had submitted evidence of his good character
and reputation, and had had other penalties or sanctions imposed for his
misconduct. See Gov.Bar R. V(13)(C)(1), (4), (5), and (6). Bell testified that he
was receiving counseling, that he was taking prescribed medication for anxiety and
depression, and that he had signed a release for relator to obtain access to his
counseling records. However, he did not attempt to establish a diagnosis of anxiety

                                          4
                                January Term, 2024

or depression as a mitigating factor under Gov.Bar R. V(13)(C)(7). Without
evidence that the diagnosed mental-health disorder contributed to the misconduct,
we do not give any mitigating weight to a diagnosed mental-health disorder. See
Disciplinary Counsel v. Goebl, 152 Ohio St.3d 498, 2018-Ohio-5, 98 N.E.3d 223,
¶ 11.
        {¶ 12} In closing argument before the panel, relator recommended that we
indefinitely suspend Bell with no credit for the time he had served under his interim
felony suspension. In support of that recommended sanction, relator cited three
cases in which this court imposed indefinite suspensions on attorneys for engaging
in sexually oriented offenses involving minors: Disciplinary Counsel v. Goldblatt,
118 Ohio St.3d 310, 2008-Ohio-2458, 888 N.E.2d 1091; Disciplinary Counsel v.
Cosgrove, 165 Ohio St.3d 280, 2021-Ohio-2188, 178 N.E.3d 481; and Disciplinary
Counsel v. Schwarz, 160 Ohio St.3d 194, 2020-Ohio-1542, 155 N.E.3d 830.
        {¶ 13} In Goldblatt, an attorney attempted to arrange a sexual encounter
with an underage girl. Goldblatt at ¶ 6. Unwittingly making the arrangements with
an undercover FBI agent, Goldblatt agreed to pay $200 to do as much sexually with
the child as that amount would buy, and after making those arrangements by phone,
he left his office, went to his bank and withdrew $200, and drove to the park to
meet the undercover agent whom he believed to be a pimp and the young girl. Id.
at ¶ 6, 12. During his disciplinary proceeding, Goldblatt attempted to downplay his
conduct, suggesting that he had gone to the park only to discuss a potential sexual
encounter and that he had not intended to meet with the young girl. Id. at ¶ 13.
This court indefinitely suspended Goldblatt from the practice of law and afforded
him no credit for the time he had served under his interim suspension. Id. at ¶ 30.
        {¶ 14} In Cosgrove, this court imposed an indefinite suspension on an
attorney who had participated in an online chat, had arranged to meet a person he
believed to be a 15-year-old girl for sexual activity, and, like Goldblatt, had driven
to the agreed meeting place where he was arrested. See Cosgrove at ¶ 5, 13.

                                          5
                             SUPREME COURT OF OHIO

Similarly, in Schwarz, this court indefinitely suspended an attorney who had
exchanged sexually charged text messages with, solicited, and arranged to meet an
undercover officer posing as a 15-year-old boy at a restaurant. Schwarz at ¶ 6, 13.
       {¶ 15} The panel acknowledged that like this case, each of the cases cited
by relator involved an attorney who had planned a sexual encounter with an
undercover officer whom the attorney believed to be an underage person. However,
the panel distinguished the facts of this case from Goldblatt, Cosgrove, and
Schwarz on the ground that, unlike the attorneys in those cases, Bell did not take
additional steps in furtherance of the proposed meeting. The panel stated that in
contrast to Goldblatt, Cosgrove, and Schwarz, Bell had neither contacted the
undercover officer to arrange the location for a meeting nor traveled to where he
had been told the young girl was located. The panel further credited Bell for ceasing
all communication with the undercover officer and for Bell’s taking the stance that
the 15-year-old girl was too young for any activity with him besides talking when
the undercover agent attempted to resume communication.
       {¶ 16} The panel also considered three cases cited by Bell in which this
court imposed term suspensions of varying lengths for attorney and judicial
misconduct that consisted of or included violations of Prof.Cond.R. 8.4(h): Ohio
State Bar Assn. v. Jacob, 150 Ohio St.3d 162, 2017-Ohio-2733, 80 N.E.3d 440;
Disciplinary Counsel v. Mason, 156 Ohio St.3d 398, 2019-Ohio-1269, 128 N.E.3d
183; and Disciplinary Counsel v. Dann, 134 Ohio St.3d 68, 2012-Ohio-5337, 979
N.E.2d 1263.
       {¶ 17} In Jacob, a municipal-court judge was convicted of three
misdemeanor offenses related to soliciting prostitution and two counts of
falsification for amending a charge in favor of a defendant without the prosecutor’s
consent. Jacob at ¶ 4-6. As for aggravating factors, this court found that Jacob had
acted with a selfish motive, engaged in a pattern of misconduct, committed multiple
offenses, and refused to acknowledge the wrongful nature of his misconduct. Id. at

                                         6
                                January Term, 2024

¶ 12. And in mitigation, this court found that he had no prior discipline, made a
timely, good-faith effort to rectify the consequences of his misconduct by resigning
from his judgeship, exhibited a cooperative attitude toward the disciplinary
proceedings, presented evidence of his good character and reputation, had a
criminal sentence imposed for his misconduct, and sought other interim
rehabilitation. Id. at ¶ 13. For Jacob’s violation of five separate ethical rules, this
court imposed a two-year suspension with the second year stayed on the condition
that he commit no further misconduct. Id. at ¶ 8-9, 21.
       {¶ 18} In Mason, this court imposed a one-year suspension, with six months
conditionally stayed, on an attorney who had entered an Alford plea to a
misdemeanor charge of soliciting sexual activity for hire and had engaged in an
improper sexual relationship with a client. Id. at ¶ 6, 11, 24; see also North
Carolina v. Alford, 400 U.S. 25, 91 S.Ct. 160, 27 L.Ed.2d 162 (1970). And in
Dann, this court imposed a six-month suspension on former Ohio Attorney General
Marc Dann, who had violated Prof.Cond.R. 8.4(h) by soliciting improper
compensation and filing false financial disclosures while serving as the state’s chief
law-enforcement officer. Dann at ¶ 3, 32. In determining the sanction to impose
for Dann’s professional misconduct, this court acknowledged that he had been
convicted of two first-degree misdemeanors, had resigned from his elected office,
and had been disqualified from holding public office for seven years. Id. at ¶ 9, 17-
18.
       {¶ 19} After comparing the facts of this case to those of the cases cited by
the parties, the panel recommended that we suspend Bell from the practice of law
for two years, with credit for six months of the time he has served under our June
2, 2022 interim-felony-suspension order. In addition, the panel recommended that
Bell’s reinstatement to the profession be conditioned on the submission of proof
that he has successfully completed the terms of the community-control sanctions
imposed by the Mahoning County Court of Common Pleas, that he has continued

                                          7
                            SUPREME COURT OF OHIO

to receive counseling, and that he has taken all medications as prescribed. The
board recommends that we impose a two-year suspension for Bell’s misconduct
with six months’ credit for time served and the conditions on reinstatement that
were recommended by the panel.
                                  SANCTION
       {¶ 20} Our caselaw holds that lawyers who attempt to engage in sexual
activity with children should receive indefinite suspensions and should not be
credited with time they were suspended from the practice of law during an interim
felony suspension. In Goldblatt, this court stated, “When a lawyer engages in or
attempts to engage in sexually motivated conduct with an underage victim, an
indefinite suspension of the lawyer’s license to practice is appropriate.” 118 Ohio
St.3d 310, 2008-Ohio-2458, 888 N.E.2d 1091, at ¶ 18. We recently imposed that
sanction on an attorney for engaging in sexual contact with a 15-year-old girl. In
Disciplinary Counsel v. Romer, __ Ohio St.3d __, 2023-Ohio-3099, __ N.E.3d __,
Romer accepted his drug dealer’s offer to arrange for a female to perform oral sex
on him. When the young woman arrived at Romer’s home, she told him that she
was 19. Id. at ¶ 7. After they watched pornography, showered, and used cocaine
together and the young woman touched Romer’s genital area inside and outside his
pants, the young woman told Romer that she was only 15 and threatened to report
him to law enforcement if he did not make an additional payment. Id. at ¶ 8-9.
Later that day, law-enforcement officers discovered that the young woman had
been trafficked by the drug dealer, who was later charged with multiple federal
crimes. Id. at ¶ 10-11.
       {¶ 21} As a result of Romer’s cooperation with federal authorities in the
prosecution of the drug dealer, Romer obtained a plea deal that did not reflect the
fact that his conduct included sexual contact with a minor. Id. at ¶ 11, 20. We
indefinitely suspended Romer with no credit for time he had served under his
interim felony suspension, id. at ¶ 20, recognizing, “When an attorney has

                                         8
                               January Term, 2024

committed sex crimes, an indefinite suspension protects the public, deters other
attorneys from engaging in similar wrongdoing, and preserves the public’s trust in
the legal profession; it also leaves open the possibility that the attorney may one
day be rehabilitated and able to resume the competent, ethical, and professional
practice of law,” id. at ¶ 19, citing Disciplinary Counsel v. Grossman, 143 Ohio
St.3d 302, 2015-Ohio-2340, 37 N.E.3d 155, ¶ 12.
       {¶ 22} None of the cases cited by Bell—Jacob, Mason, and Dann—
involved felonies related to attempted sexual relations with children. We find them
inapposite. The panel, meanwhile, distinguished this case from those cited by
relator—Goldblatt, Cosgrove, and Schwarz—in reaching its determination that we
should impose a termed suspension period on Bell. For example, the attorney in
Goldblatt engaged in negotiations with an undercover officer posing as a pimp for
sex with a girl as young as nine years old and brought money with him to the place
where he had agreed to meet the pimp; here, the panel determined that Bell’s actions
were different because he did not follow through with or attempt to complete the
$80 transaction for sex acts that he had negotiated with a person whom he thought
was 15 years old. The panel likewise distinguished Cosgrove and Schwarz, two
other cases in which the attorneys actually attempted to meet the person being
depicted as an underage person by an undercover officer. But in weighing those
attorneys’ level of commitment to their proposed illegal acts against Bell’s, the
panel and the board miss the most salient distinction from Goldblatt, Cosgrove, and
Schwarz.
       {¶ 23} Bell was an assistant prosecutor in the juvenile division of the
Cuyahoga County Prosecutor’s Office. His job was to protect children; instead,
while on the job, he negotiated a price to victimize one. Bell’s employment as a
prosecutor means that “he was a person ‘invested with the public trust,’ ”
Disciplinary Counsel v. Bennett, __ Ohio St.3d __, 2023-Ohio-4752, __ N.E.3d __,
¶ 100 (Kennedy, C.J., dissenting), quoting Disciplinary Counsel v. Berry, 166 Ohio

                                         9
                              SUPREME COURT OF OHIO

St.3d 112, 2021-Ohio-3864, 182 N.E.3d 1184, ¶ 19. Therefore, he should be held
to a higher standard. “It is not too much to say that a lawyer who holds the position
of [prosecutor], with the substantial powers of that office, assumes responsibilities
beyond those of other lawyers and must be held to the highest standard of conduct.”
People v. Brown, 726 P.2d 638, 641 (Colo.1986). A prosecutor should be held to
a higher standard than other attorneys “because of the unique function he or she
performs in representing the interests, and in exercising the sovereign power, of the
state.” People v. Hill, 17 Cal.4th 800, 802, 952 P.2d 673, 72 Cal.Rptr.2d 656
(1998).
          {¶ 24} The primary purpose of attorney discipline “is not to punish the
offender, but to protect the public.” Disciplinary Counsel v. O’Neill, 103 Ohio
St.3d 204, 2004-Ohio-4704, 815 N.E.2d 286, ¶ 53. Protecting the public, however,
“is not strictly limited to protecting clients from a specific attorney’s potential
misconduct. Imposing attorney-discipline sanctions also protects the public by
demonstrating to the bar and the public that this type of conduct will not be
tolerated.” Disciplinary Counsel v. Schuman, 152 Ohio St.3d 47, 2017-Ohio-8800,
92 N.E.3d 850, ¶ 17. Our duty to protect the public from attorneys who engage in
misconduct gains increased significance when the attorney is employed by the
public and engages in illegal activity while on the job.
          {¶ 25} At the time of Bell’s arrest, he was practicing in the child-support
unit of the prosecutor’s office. He had previously been employed in the abuse,
neglect, and dependency division. The fact that a person whom the public has
entrusted to advocate for the protection of children engages in the solicitation of
sex from a minor while at his job calls for a sanction that reflects the seriousness of
such a violation of the public trust and that protects the public from any further such
activity. Adopting the board’s recommendation here would mean lessening this
court’s typical sanction for lawyers who attempt to engage in sex with children
from an indefinite suspension to a two-year suspension with credit for six months

                                          10
                                January Term, 2024

served under the interim suspension. The board’s recommended sanction would
not sufficiently protect the public from Bell’s illegal and unethical misconduct.
       {¶ 26} Although an attorney suspended indefinitely is eligible to petition
for reinstatement after two years, an indefinite suspension is not the same as a two-
year suspension. This court has held that

       an indefinite suspension is just that: indefinite. Although two years
       is the earliest time at which a party may petition for reinstatement
       from an indefinite suspension, Gov.Bar R. V(25), an indefinite
       suspension carries with it no assurance of reinstatement in two
       years, five years, ten years or indeed at any time. Each indefinite
       suspension is considered on the facts known at the time of petition
       for reinstatement, including the severity of the misconduct for which
       the sanction was imposed.

Akron Bar Assn. v. Chandler, 62 Ohio St.3d 471, 473, 584 N.E.2d 677 (1992).
       {¶ 27} Further, this court has held that lawyers convicted of felonies
stemming from engaging in or attempting to engage in sexually motivated conduct
with an underage victim “cannot expect to receive credit for an interim suspension.”
Goldblatt, 118 Ohio St.3d 310, 2008-Ohio-2458, 888 N.E.2d 1091, at ¶ 18, citing
Disciplinary Counsel v. Margolis, 114 Ohio St.3d 165, 2007-Ohio-3607, 870
N.E.2d 1158, ¶ 26 (credit for an interim suspension is not given unless the lawyer
shows that the felony conviction manifested a “one-time, never-to-be-repeated
mistake”).
       {¶ 28} We cannot be sure that Bell’s activity was a “one-time, never-to-be-
repeated mistake.” Bell negotiated a price for sex on July 30, 2021. He did not
follow through with that agreement. But on August 5, when contacted by the
officer posing as an underage girl, he engaged in another text conversation. Despite

                                         11
                            SUPREME COURT OF OHIO

having been given the chance to reflect on his actions, Bell continued to interact
with the “girl” when she contacted him. Given that he engaged in the solicitation
of sex with a person whom he believed to have been underage while simultaneously
representing the public on juvenile issues, his lapse in judgment was especially
profound. And like other lawyers who have attempted to engage in sex with
children, Bell should not receive credit for time served while he was suspended
from the practice of law during an interim felony suspension. See Romer, __ Ohio
St.3d __, 2023-Ohio-3099, __ N.E.3d __, at ¶ 20; Goldblatt at ¶ 30; Cosgrove, 165
Ohio St.3d 280, 2021-Ohio-2188, 178 N.E.3d 481, at ¶ 13; Schwarz, 160 Ohio St.3d
194, 2020-Ohio-1542, 155 N.E.3d 830, at ¶ 13.
       {¶ 29} Having considered the facts of this case and our applicable
precedent, we conclude that the board’s recommended sanction of a two-year
suspension, with a credit of six months for time Bell has served under his interim
felony suspension and conditions on his reinstatement, is not the appropriate
sanction for Bell’s misconduct in this case. We impose an indefinite suspension
with no time credited for Bell’s interim suspension.
                                 CONCLUSION
       {¶ 30} Accordingly, Joseph Michael Bell is indefinitely suspended from the
practice of law in Ohio with no credit for time he has served under our interim-
felony-suspension order imposed on June 2, 2022. In addition to the requirements
for reinstatement set forth in Gov.Bar R. V(25), Bell shall be required to submit
proof that he has successfully completed the terms of the community-control
sanctions imposed by the Mahoning County Court of Common Pleas in case No.
2021 CR 00601 and submit proof from a qualified health-care professional that he
has continued to participate in counseling and is taking all prescribed medications.
Costs are taxed to Bell.
                                                            Judgment accordingly.
       FISCHER, DONNELLY, BOCK, and DETERS, JJ., concur.

                                        12
                                January Term, 2024

       DEWINE and STEWART, JJ., concur in part and dissent in part and would
adopt the board’s recommended sanction of a two-year suspension with six months
of credit for time served under the interim felony suspension.
       GINGER S. BOCK, J., of the First District Court of Appeals, sitting for
BRUNNER, J.
                               _________________
       Joseph M. Caligiuri, Disciplinary Counsel, and Martha S. Asseff, Assistant
Disciplinary Counsel, for relator.
       John Juhasz, for respondent.
                               _________________

                                        13