Featured Chrome Extensions:

Casey IRACs are produced by an AI that analyzes the opinion’s content to construct its analysis. While we strive for accuracy, the output may not be flawless. For a complete and precise understanding, please refer to the linked opinions above.

Keywords

defendantlawyerwill
defendantlawyerwillrespondent

Related Cases

Griffin v. Illinois, 351 U.S. 12, 76 S.Ct. 585, 100 L.Ed. 891, 55 A.L.R.2d 1055
View Case »
In re Fountain, 74 Cal.App.3d 715, 141 Cal.Rptr. 654
View Case »
SEC v. National Student Marketing Corp., Not Reported in F.Supp., 1974 WL 415, 18 Fed.R.Serv.2d 1302, Fed. Sec. L. Rep. P 94,610
View Case »
Harriman v. Maddocks, 518 A.2d 1027
View Case »
Winters v. Cook, 489 F.2d 174
View Case »
Justia Law Link
LexisNexis Link
Westlaw Link
CourtListener Link
Oyez Link

Cincinnati Bar Assn. v. Schmalz, 123 Ohio St.3d 130, 914 N.E.2d 1024, 2009 -Ohio- 4159

Facts

Anna Schmalz was appointed to represent a criminal defendant in two separate indictments. After the defendant was acquitted of some charges, he was later convicted and sentenced to five years and five months in prison. Following this, the defendant filed a grievance against Schmalz, alleging that she had engaged in a romantic relationship with him, which created a conflict of interest. An investigation revealed explicit communications between them, leading to Schmalz admitting to inappropriate conduct.

The facts in this case have been stipulated to by the parties. On December 7, 2006, respondent was appointed to represent a criminal defendant with respect to two separate indictments.

Issue

Did Anna Schmalz violate the Rules of Professional Conduct by engaging in a romantic relationship with her client, thereby creating a conflict of interest?

The Board of Commissioners on Grievances and Discipline recommends that we adopt the stipulated facts and accede to the respondent's consent-to-discipline agreement in the form of a public reprimand.

Rule

A lawyer's representation of a client creates a conflict of interest if there is a substantial risk that the lawyer's representation will be compromised by the lawyer's personal interests, as outlined in Prof.Cond.R. 1.7(a)(2) and 1.8(j).

Prof.Cond.R. 1.7(a)(2) (a lawyer's representation of a client creates a conflict of interest if there is a substantial risk that the lawyer's representation will be compromised by the lawyer's personal interests) and 1.8(j) (a lawyer shall not solicit or engage in sexual activity with a client unless the relationship existed before the representation commenced).

Analysis

The court found that Schmalz's relationship with her client constituted a conflict of interest, as it compromised her professional responsibilities. Despite her initial denial of the sexual nature of the relationship, the evidence from recorded conversations demonstrated that the relationship was inappropriate and affected her legal representation. The court noted that while her actions were serious, they did not rise to the level of the most egregious cases of misconduct.

The present case dwells at the end of the spectrum representing the least egregious cases of sexual misconduct.

Conclusion

The court ordered that Anna Schmalz be publicly reprimanded for her violations of the Rules of Professional Conduct.

We agree with the recommendation, and we order that respondent be publicly reprimanded for her misconduct.

Who won?

Cincinnati Bar Association prevailed in the case as the court upheld the disciplinary complaint and ordered a public reprimand for Schmalz's misconduct.

The board reviewed the stipulation and consent-to-discipline agreement and recommended that the court adopt the agreement.

You must be