Opinion
No. D.D. 88-23
Submitted January 11, 1989 —
Decided March 15, 1989.
Attorneys at law — Misconduct — Six-month suspension — Engaging in illegal conduct involving moral turpitude — Waiver of fees in exchange for sexual encounters.
ON CERTIFIED REPORT by the Board of Commissioners on Grievances and Discipline of the Supreme Court, No. 47-87-B.
On January 26, 1988, relator, Dayton Bar Association, filed a complaint against respondent, William Sams, alleging two counts of misconduct. Both Counts I and II charged respondent with violations of DR 1-102(A)(3) (engaging in illegal conduct involving moral turpitude) and 1-102(A)(6) (engaging in conduct that adversely reflects upon an attorney's fitness to practice law). Respondent answered the complaint on February 12, 1988. The matter was heard by a panel of the Board of Commissioners on Grievances and Discipline of the Supreme Court ("board") on June 22, 1988.
Count I alleged that on or about October 9, 1986, respondent knowingly purchased a controlled substance from a client without having a prescription. Count II alleged that the respondent knowingly solicited a female client for the purpose of engaging in sexual intercourse in exchange for legal services.
During the proceedings before the panel, the parties submitted stipulations regarding the pertinent facts. Further evidence was adduced at the hearing. According to the stipulations, an attorney-client relationship began in September 1986 when Carla Plummer came to the respondent's office inquiring about legal services regarding a traffic ticket in the Miamisburg Municipal Court and a bankruptcy matter. On October 7, 1986, Plummer returned to the respondent's office to sign papers regarding the bankruptcy action and discuss the traffic matter. At this meeting a discussion took place between the respondent and Plummer in which Plummer suggested that if the respondent would waive his attorney fees, she would pay the respondent with sexual favors. According to his testimony, the respondent was interested in this arrangement. Apparently, nothing further happened on that date.
Sometime after the meeting of October 7, Plummer went to the Miamisburg Police Department and filed a complaint against the respondent for soliciting for prostitution. In response to the complaint, certain members of the police department wired Plummer for sound and gave her instructions to return to the respondent's office and agree to the sexual encounters.
On October 10, 1986, Plummer did return to respondent's office. During their conversations, which were being taped by the police, the respondent did agree to waive his fees for three sexual encounters. At some point during the meeting the respondent suggested that the first "installment" be made at that time in his office. Plummer elected not to do so then, but she said she would at a later time.
During the same meeting, the respondent and Plummer engaged in another discussion in which Plummer agreed to purchase and share certain prescription diet pills, Preludin, with the respondent. Preludin is a Schedule II drug. The transfer of the drugs was not explicitly agreed upon, but Plummer was to call the respondent and arrange for the exchange when she acquired the pills.
Plummer did acquire the drugs. The police department paid seventy dollars for one hundred pills and gave them to Plummer for the purpose of the exchange that was to take place. This was the same day as the meeting, October 10. The transfer was arranged to take place in the parking lot of a shopping center. The transaction took place that day. The respondent paid sixty dollars for the pills. Immediately after the exchange, the respondent was arrested and charged with violations of R.C. 2925.03(A)(6), aggravated trafficking in drugs, a second-degree felony, and R.C. 2925.13(A), permitting drug abuse by use of a motor vehicle, a first-degree misdemeanor.
At the conclusion of the trial on the drug charges, the respondent was found not guilty on the basis of police entrapment. The other charge, soliciting for prostitution, was reduced in the Miamisburg Municipal Court to disorderly conduct, a minor misdemeanor, at the request of the prosecutor, to which charge the respondent pleaded guilty and received a small fine.
The hearing panel concluded that respondent had violated the Disciplinary Rules charged and recommended a six-month suspension. The board concurred in the panel's findings and recommendation.
Jablinski, Folino, Roberts, Schultz Martin and Ronald E. Schultz, for relator.
John H. Rion, for respondent.
We concur with the board's findings and its recommendation. Accordingly, respondent is hereby suspended from the practice of law in Ohio for six months. Costs taxed to respondent.
Judgment accordingly.
MOYER, C.J., SWEENEY, HOLMES, DOUGLAS and H. BROWN, JJ., concur.
WRIGHT and RESNICK, JJ., dissent.
I must respectfully dissent. Respondent's gross violations of DR 1-102(A)(3) and DR 1-102(A)(6) were too serious to merit the sanction invoked by the majority. I would suspend respondent at a minimum for an eighteen-month period, and I would consider a period of probation thereafter.
RESNICK, J., concurs in the foregoing dissenting opinion.