Disciplinary Counsel v. Hines

[Cite as Disciplinary Counsel v. Hines, 133 Ohio St.3d 166, 2012-Ohio-3929.]

DISCIPLINARY COUNSEL v. HINES.

[Cite as Disciplinary Counsel v. Hines, 133 Ohio St.3d 166, 2012-Ohio-3929.]

Attorneys—Misconduct—Sexual relation with client—Six-month stayed

suspension.

(Nos. 2011-0309 and 2011-1759—Submitted February 8, 2012—Decided

September 6, 2012.)

ON CERTIFIED REPORT of the Board of Commissioners on Grievances and

Discipline of the Supreme Court, No. 10-088.

__________________

Per Curiam.

{¶ 1} Respondent, Dean Edward Hines of Centerville, Ohio, Attorney

Registration No. 0062990, was admitted to the practice of law in Ohio in 1994.

On October 11, 2010, relator, disciplinary counsel, filed a complaint alleging that

Hines had engaged in an inappropriate relationship with a client and violated

Prof.Cond.R. 1.8(j) and 8.4(h).

{¶ 2} The parties stipulated to Hines’s misconduct. Upon the parties’

stipulations, the Board of Commissioners on Grievances and Discipline accepted

the parties’ joint recommendation that we publicly reprimand Hines. However,

we did not accept the recommendation and remanded the case for further

proceedings.

{¶ 3} On October 14, 2011, the Board of Commissioners on Grievances

and Discipline issued a second report and recommended a 12-month suspension

of Hines’s law license, with six months stayed.1

1. The board report recommending that we adopt the parties’ consent-to-discipline agreement was

filed in case No. 2011-0309. Upon filing with this court, the board report following remand was

assigned case No. 2011-1759. We consolidate these two cases, sua sponte, for disposition.

SUPREME COURT OF OHIO

Misconduct

{¶ 4} In early 2009, Hines agreed to represent a new client in an ongoing

domestic-relations dispute with the client’s ex-husband. On March 16, 2009, after

several appointments and a pretrial conference, Hines invited the client to dinner,

where he discussed his interest in dating her. Hines assured the client that a

personal relationship between the two would not pose a conflict of interest with

respect to their attorney-client relationship. After another dinner the next

evening, Hines and the client became sexually intimate. Describing her feelings

at this time, the client later testified that she was overwhelmed by Hines’s

advances and that she was afraid to resist him when she needed his legal

assistance.

{¶ 5} In the months that followed, Hines continued to represent the client

in the domestic dispute while continuing their romantic relationship. Hines hired

the client to work as a bookkeeper at his law firm, leased a car for her use, and

contributed to her mortgage and utility payments. They traveled together to

Austria, Arizona, and South Carolina, and when the client underwent surgery

requiring a lengthy recovery period, Hines moved the client and her children into

his home.

{¶ 6} The relationship fell apart in November 2009. On November 9,

2009, Hines called 9-1-1 to report a domestic dispute with the client. He filed

charges of aggravated menacing and domestic violence and obtained a temporary

protection order barring any contact with Hines. The charges were eventually

dropped.

{¶ 7} The day after their altercation, Hines fired the client. A few days

later, he mailed a letter simultaneously notifying her of an adverse ruling in the

underlying domestic case and of the end of their attorney-client relationship.

{¶ 8} When Hines mailed the letter, 11 days remained in which the client

could protect her legal rights by objecting to the magistrate’s ruling. Hines must

2

January Term, 2012

have known about the client’s vulnerability; during their relationship, she had

faced financial troubles and a serious physical illness requiring surgery, not to

mention the legal issues for which she had sought Hines’s help. Yet Hines did not

seek leave for an extension of this deadline, refer the client to another attorney, or

otherwise assist the client in protecting her rights. Instead, he left a vulnerable

client without legal representation or assistance at a critical time in her case, and

he did so through an accusatory letter that blamed the client for the adverse

decision.

{¶ 9} Although he left the client without counsel to protect her rights,

Hines continued to make overtures to her. He repeatedly e-mailed her and sent

her text messages. As a practical matter, these overtures encouraged the client to

violate the temporary protection order. She did not accept that invitation, even

after Hines’s promises that he would not report her to police if she responded.

{¶ 10} The parties have stipulated that Hines’s conduct violated

Prof.Cond.R. 1.8(j), which generally prohibits sexual activity between attorneys

and their clients, and Prof.Cond.R. 8.4(h), which bars behavior that reflects

adversely on the fitness of a lawyer to practice law. We adopt the board’s

findings of fact and misconduct.

Sanction

{¶ 11} The parties stipulated to the absence of aggravating factors.

However, the Board of Commissioners on Grievances and Discipline identified

several aggravating factors pertaining to Hines’s misconduct: (1) he “knew from

the outset that his conduct violated the Ohio Rules of Professional Conduct but he

nevertheless acted with a clearly selfish motive,” (2) he “has attempted to excuse

or minimize that conduct rather than acknowledge that it was wrong,” and (3) the

client “was a vulnerable [person] and has been harmed as a result of” Hines’s

misconduct. Hines objects to these findings. We overrule the objections and

adopt the findings of aggravating factors.

3

SUPREME COURT OF OHIO

{¶ 12} The parties stipulated to the following mitigating factors: (1) Hines

has no prior disciplinary record, (2) Hines cooperated with the investigation of his

misconduct, and (3) as evidenced by several letters of support, Hines enjoys a

positive reputation in the legal community.

{¶ 13} Disciplinary counsel suggests a six-month suspension, with all six

months stayed. Hines suggests a public reprimand or a stayed suspension of no

more than six months. The Board of Commissioners on Grievances and

Discipline recommends that we suspend Hines from the practice of law for 12

months, with the final six months stayed.

{¶ 14} In the past, we have imposed public reprimands on attorneys who

engaged in improper consensual relationships with their clients, when the

relationships did not compromise the clients’ interests. See Disciplinary Counsel

v. Siewert, 130 Ohio St.3d 402, 2011-Ohio-5935, 958 N.E.2d 946, ¶ 9 (citing

several such outcomes). But this is not a simple case of mutual consent; Hines

used his position of power to initiate and pursue an intimate relationship with a

vulnerable client who was afraid to resist. Furthermore, Hines’s conduct in

leaving the client without legal assistance at a critical juncture in her case

threatened her interests. A public reprimand is not enough.

{¶ 15} Nor do we find Hines’s misdeeds comparable to those of attorneys

whom we have suspended. See, e.g., Cleveland Metro. Bar Assn. v. Lockshin, 125

Ohio St.3d 529, 2010-Ohio-2207, 929 N.E.2d 1028 (indefinite suspension for an

attorney who made inappropriate sexual comments to a number of women,

including clients, and who failed to file a notice of appeal on time); Disciplinary

Counsel v. Goldblatt, 118 Ohio St.3d 310, 2008-Ohio-2458, 888 N.E.2d 1091

(indefinite suspension for an attorney who attempted to arrange a sexual

encounter with a minor); Butler Cty. Bar Assn. v. Williamson, 117 Ohio St.3d

399, 2008-Ohio-1196, 884 N.E.2d 55 (indefinite suspension for an attorney in an

improper-relationship case who lied about the relationship and failed to respond

4

January Term, 2012

to subpoenas). Hines’s conduct involved only one client, he has not engaged in

any deception to hide the misconduct, and he has cooperated with the disciplinary

process.

{¶ 16} The appropriate penalty in cases like these is often a stayed

suspension, which reflects the hope that the misconduct is limited to one

occurrence and the reality that its recurrence would necessitate serious

consequences. See, e.g., Toledo Bar Assn. v. Burkholder, 109 Ohio St.3d 443,

2006-Ohio-2817, 848 N.E.2d 840.

{¶ 17} Like Hines, the attorney in Burkholder pursued an improper

relationship with a vulnerable domestic-relations client. Burkholder made

numerous advances to the client until she fired him. However, Burkholder had no

prior disciplinary violations, and he cooperated throughout the disciplinary

process. Id. at ¶ 9. We imposed a six-month, stayed suspension of Burkholder’s

license to practice law. Id. at ¶ 14.

{¶ 18} We imposed the same penalty in Disciplinary Counsel v. Siewert,

130 Ohio St.3d 402, 2011-Ohio-5935, 958 N.E.2d 946. The attorney in Siewert

engaged in a consensual but improper relationship with a domestic-relations

client. Unlike Hines, Siewert had a record of prior discipline; however, we noted

as mitigating factors Siewert’s struggles with depression and his efforts to correct

his personal problems. Id. at ¶ 8.

{¶ 19} We find Burkholder and Siewert instructive. Like the attorneys in

those cases, Hines made a serious mistake and abused the position of trust

conferred upon attorneys, but the limited nature of his misconduct and his

cooperative approach to the investigation give us reason to believe that Hines will

conduct himself appropriately in the future.

{¶ 20} Accordingly, we suspend Hines from the practice of law for six

months, and we stay the suspension on the condition that Hines engage in no

further misconduct. Costs are taxed to Hines.

5

SUPREME COURT OF OHIO

Judgment accordingly.

O’CONNOR, C.J., and PFEIFER, LUNDBERG STRATTON, O’DONNELL,

LANZINGER, CUPP, and MCGEE BROWN, JJ., concur.

__________________

Jonathan E. Coughlan, Disciplinary Counsel, and Joseph M. Caligiuri,

Senior Assistant Disciplinary Counsel, for relator.

Kegler, Brown, Hill & Ritter and Christopher J. Weber, for respondent.

______________________

6