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.]

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—One-

year 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

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

2

January Term, 2022

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.

3

SUPREME COURT OF OHIO

{¶ 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

4

January Term, 2022

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 ex-

wife, and his meeting with his attorney and Noble. After a full investigation, D.P.

was cleared of any wrongdoing.

5

SUPREME COURT OF OHIO

{¶ 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).

6

January Term, 2022

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.

7

SUPREME COURT OF OHIO

{¶ 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

8

January Term, 2022

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

9

SUPREME COURT OF OHIO

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.

10

January Term, 2022

{¶ 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.

_________________

11