## Facts

- Thomas Charles Holmes (admitted 2001) and Ashleigh Brie Kerr (admitted 2010) were Ohio attorneys who primarily represented public school districts at different law firms and did not jointly represent any clients.
- After beginning a personal relationship in 2014, they exchanged more than a dozen emails from January 2015 to November 2016 that revealed information relating to client representations, including privileged and work-product-protected material.
- Kerr sent Holmes client emails and requests for legal documents; Holmes forwarded client communications and documents he had prepared in his own client matters.
- In about one-third of the exchanges, Holmes substantially completed work that Kerr used for her clients.
- Holmes’s firm discovered the disclosures in June 2016, removed him from the firm, and a partner filed a grievance; Kerr’s employer was notified, and Kerr admitted the exchanges and Holmes’s assistance to her partners.
- Even after a disciplinary investigation commenced, Kerr continued sending confidential client information to Holmes and Holmes continued assisting Kerr with document preparation.
- Kerr resigned from her firm in November 2016.
- Disciplinary Counsel filed a complaint in December 2017; the matter proceeded by consent-to-discipline agreements with stipulated facts, stipulated rule violations, and a jointly proposed sanction.

## Issues

1. Whether the stipulated conduct—repeated cross-firm disclosure of confidential client information without consent and undisclosed substantial assistance by another lawyer—constituted violations of the Ohio Rules of Professional Conduct.
2. Whether six-month suspensions, fully stayed on conditions, were an appropriate sanction under a consent-to-discipline disposition given the aggravating and mitigating factors.

## Decision

- The Supreme Court of Ohio accepted the consent-to-discipline agreements and the Board of Professional Conduct’s recommendation.
- The court found that the stipulated facts supported violations of Prof.Cond.R. 1.6(a) and 1.6(d) (confidentiality and safeguarding information) by both respondents.
- The court also found Kerr violated Prof.Cond.R. 1.4(a)(3) and 1.4(a)(4) by failing to keep certain clients reasonably informed, including failing to disclose Holmes’s substantial involvement.
- The court found both respondents violated Prof.Cond.R. 8.4(h) (conduct adversely reflecting on fitness to practice).
- The court imposed six-month suspensions on each respondent, fully stayed on conditions (including compliance with professional conduct rules and no further misconduct).

## Legal Principles

- A lawyer may not reveal information relating to client representation to a lawyer outside the representation and outside the firm absent informed client consent or an applicable exception.  
- Lawyers must make reasonable efforts to prevent unauthorized disclosure of, or access to, information relating to client representation.  
- When a lawyer uses another lawyer outside the firm to substantially assist with a client matter, the lawyer must communicate sufficiently with the client so the client is reasonably informed about the representation and who is performing the work.  
- A sustained pattern of confidentiality violations, including continued misconduct after an investigation begins, supports suspension; substantial mitigation (no prior discipline, cooperation, good character evidence, and remorse) may justify a fully stayed suspension to protect the public and the profession.

## Conclusion

The court disciplined two attorneys for repeatedly exchanging confidential client information across firm lines and for undisclosed substantial outside assistance on client work, ordering six-month suspensions for each lawyer but fully staying the suspensions under conditions based on significant mitigating factors despite a pattern of misconduct.


Disciplinary Counsel v. Holmes & Kerr, 155 Ohio St. 3d 261, 120 N.E.3d 820 (Ohio 2018)