^4 Bo; Gri CI.tKK t31 Gi;^NT the SUPREM.E COUFiT F 0HI0 _

Size: px

Start display at page:

Download "^4 Bo; Gri CI.tKK t31 Gi;^NT the SUPREM.E COUFiT F 0HI0 _"

Ambrose Perkins
5 years ago
Views:

1 BEFORE THE BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS ON GRIEVANCES AND DISCIPLINE OF THE SUPREME COURT OF OHIO 3 0 In re: Complaint against Case No Mark Jon Wieczorek Attorney Reg. No Respondent Cincinnati Bar Ass Relator ttei ^4 Bo; Gri CI.tKK t31 Gi;^NT the SUPREM.E COUFiT F 0HI0 _ gs of Fact, isions of Law, and mendation of the of Commissioners on nces and Discipline of )reme Court of Ohio CONSENT TO DISCIPLINE { 1} This matter comes before the panel on the parties' consent to discipline filed with the Board on November 28, The consent, with accompanying the affidavit of Respondent, establishes a violation by Respondent of Prof. Cond. R. 1.8(j) [engaging in sexual activity with a client]. The consent Droposes that Resnondent receive a public renrimand as a sanction. { 2} The panel recommends that the Board accept the consent to discipline together with the proposed sanction. The stipulated facts reveal that Respondent engaged in consensual sexual activity with his client while representing her on a charge of driving while intoxicated. There is nothing in the facts indicating that the sexual activity was part of a larger pattern of misconduct, that Respondent pressured the client using his position as attorney as leverage, or that the relationship affected the professional relationship. Under similar fact patterns, the Supreme Court of Ohio has almost uniformly imposed a public reprimand as a sanction. See Allen Cty. Bar Assn. v. Bartels, 124 Ohio St.3d 527, 2010-Ohio-1046, citing Cincinnati Bar

2 Assn. v.,5chmalz, 123 Ohio St.3d 13.0, 2009-Ohio See also Disciplinary Counsel v. Engler, 110 Ohio St.3d 138, 2006-Ohio BOARD RECOMMENDATION Pursuant to Gov. Bar R. V, Section 6, the Board of Commissioners on Grievances and Discipline of the Supreme Court of Ohio considered this matter on February 1, The Board voted to accept and adopt the agreement entered into by Relator and Respondent. The agreement sets forth the misconduct and the sanction of a public reprimand, and the Board recommends imposition of the agreed sanction of a public reprimand. The Board further recommends that the costs of these proceedings be taxed to R.espondent in any disciplinary order entered, so that execution may issue. Pursuant to the order of the Board of Commissioners on Grievances and Discipline of the Supreme Court of Ohio, I hereby certify the foregoing Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law, and Recommendations as those of the Board. ACHA*lJAt VE, Secretary 2

3 FILED BEFORE THE BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS NOV ON GRIEVANCES AND DISCIPLINE OF BOARD OF COMMISSiONERS THE SUPREME COURT OF OHIO ON GR^^:`^ANCES & DIS^CIP4,NIF In re: Complaint against Mark Jon Wieczorek, Esq. Suhre & Associates LLC 1014 Vine St., Suite 2525 Attorney Registration No. ( ) Case No Consent to Discipline Respondent, CINCINNATI BAR ASSOCIATION 225 East Sixth St., 2"d Floor Relator. (1) Conditioned upon the acceptance of this Consent to Discipline by the Board of Commissioners on Grievances and Discipline of the Supreme Court of Ohio, and based on the Stipulation of Facts submitted herewith, Respondent admits to violating his oath of office and the Ohio Rules of Professional Conduct, specifically Rule 1.8(j) as follows: 1. Rule 1.8(j), for engaging in sexual activity with a client wherein no sexual relationship existed prior to the commencement of the client-lawyer relationship. (2) Respondent and Relator agree to the following mitigating factors: 1. Respondent has no prior disciplinary history. 2. Respondent has been cooperative in the investigation process. 3. Respondent's personal relationship with his client did not adversely impact the legal representation he provided her.

4 (3) Respondent and Relator agree to the sanction of a public r d. By: Mark J. Wieczorek, Esq. (# ) Suhre & Associates LLC 1014 Vine St., Suite 2525 Phone: (513) m-wieczorek@onu.edu -^.. ^,^ By: ^^. r^ ^ ^-^--- - Mark VanderLaan (#. 3297) Dinsmore & Shohl LLP 255 East Fifth Street, Suite 1900 Phone: Fax: mark.vanderlaan@dinsmore.com By: Q,4,. L. C Ann L. Lugbill (# ) Murphy Anderson PLLC 2406 Auburn Ave. Cincinnati, OH Phone: Fax: alugbill@murphypllc.com Rv- l,^_ns<^.cn.,. (A. ^.^ ^ ^ - ^ Carolyn A. aggart (#00271'07) Porter Wright Morris & Arthur LLP 250 East Fifth Street, Suite 2200 Phone: Fax: ctaggart@porterwright.com By: t,,^, paytl-^e^ Edwin W. Patterson III, Esq. (# ) General Counsel Cincinnati Bar Association 225 East Sixth St., 2 a Fl. Phone: (513) ewpatterson@cincybar.org -2-

5 In re: Complaint against BEFORE THE BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS ON GRIEVANCES AND DISCIPLINE OF THE SUPREME COURT OF OHIO FILED NOV BOARC^ OF COMMiSSlOtvci 'is ON GRIEVANCES & DISCIPLINE Mark Jon Wieczorek, Esq. Suhre & Associates LLC 1014 Vine St., Suite 2525 Attorney Registration No. ( ) Case No STIPULATION OF FACTS Respondent, CINCINNATI BAR ASSOCIATION 225 East Sixth St., 2 d Floor Relator. Come now Relator and Respondent, through counsel, and hereby enter into the following stipulations of fact: 1. Respondent, Mark Wieczorek, is a 42-year old attorney, who has been licensed to practice law in the State of Ohio since November, At the time of the incidents described herein, Grievant A.F., was a 22-year old college student. 3. On January 2, 2011, A.F. was charged with operating a vehicle under the influence (OVI), in Clermont County, Ohio. 4. On or about January 5, 2011,. Respondent was retained to represent A.F. in the defense of the OVI charge. The arrangements for the representation were done via the internet 1

6 and phone; there was no personal, face-to-face meeting. Virtually all of the arrangements were made by A.F.'s father and stepmother. 5. Respondent and A.F. had no relationship prior to January 5, On January 24, 2011, A.F. appeared for a scheduled pretrial conference at the Clermont County Municipal Court. Respondent represented A.F. during the pretrial, at which time certain of A.F.'s driving privileges were restored and her next court date was set for February 14, On January 24, 2011 was the first time that A.F. and Respondent met, at the courthouse. 7. On the evening of January 24, 2011, A.F. sent a text message to Respondent to thank him for his assistance in restoring her driving privileges. Respondent sent a text message back to A.F. The subsequent text messages exchanged between Respondent and A.F. became sexual in nature. In the few days following January 24, 2011, Respondent sent A.F. additional sexually explicit text messages and a sexually explicit photograph. 8. On the evening of January 27, 2011 Respondent indicated to A.F. that he wanted to see her. Respondent and A. F. thereafter made plans to meet. Respondent then drove his car approximately two hours to the city in which A.F. lived. Respondent picked A.F. up at the agreed location, a bar, and drove her to her home, where Respondent and A.F. engaged in sexual activity. 9. A.F. appeared in person in Clermont County Municipal Court on February 14, 2011 for a hearing. At the hearing, the charge of OVI was successfully reduced to reckless operation and other charges were dismissed. 2

7 10. Other than a telephone call from A.F. to Respondent's office to ask a question about her driving suspension, A.F. and Respondent have had no further contact since February 14, The parties hereto stipulate that the legal representation was not adversely impacted by the personal relationship between A.F. and Respondent. Ann L. Lugbill ( ) Murphy Anderson PLLC 2406 Auburn Ave. Cincinnati, OH Phone: Fax: alugbill@murphypllc.com ()^, l ci^.e Carolyn A. Taggart ( Porter Wright Morris & Arthur LLP 250 East Fifth Street, Suite 2200 ^ Phone: Fax: FimoiI n*. n^orf^r^rtnn:mi_,4 n-m i^ill[lll. V LGL^^f11 G^[Jlll ^Vl YY 11g11L. V V111 w.^^.^.-t:q Edwin W. Patterson, III, Esq. ( ) General Counsel Cincinnati Bar Association The Cincinnati Bar Center 225 East Sixth Street, Second Floor Phone: ewpatterson@cincybar.org IXI-a-^&11 Mark A. VanderLaan ( 3297) Dinsmore & Shohl LLP 3

8 255 East Fifth Street, Suite 1900 Phone: Fax: CINCINNATI/198962v.1 4

9 In re: BEFORE THE BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS ON GRIEVANCES AND DISCIPLINE OF THE SUPREME COURT OF OHIO FILED NOV BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS ONf GRIEVANCES & DISCIPLINE Complaint against Mark Jon Wieczorek, Esq. Suhre & Associates LLC 1014 Vine St., Suite 2525 Attorney Registration No. ( ) Case No Affidavit of Mark Jon Wieczorek Respondent, CINCINNATI BAR ASSOCIATION 225 East Sixth St., 2nd Floor Relator. STATE OF OHIO COUNTY OF HAMILTON ) ) ) SS: I, Mark Wieczorek, an attorney licensed to practice law in Ohio, being duly cautioned and sworn, state upon personal knowledge the following: 1. The Supreme Court of Ohio admitted me to the practice of law in the State of Ohio in 2007, and the Attorney Services Division, Attorney Registration Section, assigned Attorney Registration No

10 2. I make this Affidavit as a part of and to carry into effect an agreement I made with the Cincinnati Bar Association (the "Bar") in November, The Bar and I made the agreement entitled "Consent to Discipline," under Rule 11 of the Rules and Regulations Governing Procedure on Complaints and Hearings Before the Board of Commissioners on Grievances and Discipline of the Supreme Court of Ohio. 3. On or about January 5, 2011, 1 was retained to represent A.F. in the defense of an OVI charge. The arrangements for the representation were done via the internet and phone; there was no personal, face-to-face meeting. Virtually all of the arrangements were made by A.F.'s father and stepmother. 4. I had no relationship with A.F. prior to January 5, I first met A.F. on January 24, 2011, at a scheduled pretrial conference at the Clermont County Municipal Court. 6. On the evening of January 24, 2011, I exchanged a series of text messages with A.F. that were sexual in nature. In the few days following January 24, 2011, I sent A.F. additional sexually explicit text messages and a sexually explicit photograph. 7. On the evening of January 27, 2011, I engaged in sexual activity with A.F. 8. At A.F.'s hearing on February 14, 2011, the charge of OVI was successfully reduced to reckless operation and other charges were dismissed. 9. Other than a telephone call from A.F. to my office to ask a question about her driving suspension, I have had no further contact with A.F. since February 14, 2011.

11 10. I admit that these facts constitute grounds for the Supreme Court of Ohio to impose discipline for misconduct and I admit that I committed the misconduct set forth herein acknolwedge that the agreement sets forth all charges of misconduct against me. 12. As a sanction of my misconduct, I agree to accept the sanction of a public reprimand. I further agree to pay the costs of this action. 13. Without coercion or duress, I freely and voluntarily admit the facts serving as the basis of the Cincinnati Bar Association's complaint against me and agree to consent to discipline. I am fully aware of the implications of the admissions and the agreement on my ability to practice law in Ohio. 14. I understand that the Supreme Court of Ohio has the final authority to determine the appropriate sanctions for the misconduct I have admitted. FURTHER AFFIANT SAYETH NAUGHT.,-y7z _ Al(orL T. 1x7iRan.nrnL i^'if4111 JVll VlVV4V1v11 Sworn and subscribed in my presence this,22day of #s mw

THE SUPWEME COURT OF OHIO. petitions this Court for reinstatement to the practice of law pursuant to Gov. Bar R.

THE SUPWEME COURT OF OHIO. petitions this Court for reinstatement to the practice of law pursuant to Gov. Bar R. Mahoning County Bar Association, Relator, THE SUPWEME COURT OF OHIO V3. Case No. 04-1064 R. Allen Sinclair PETITION FOR 11 Overhill Road. REINSTATEMENT Youngstown, Ohio 44512 (Mahoning County) Petitioner.