## Facts

- Jason Allan Sarver, an Ohio attorney admitted in 2007, first met J.B. while representing J.B.’s then-boyfriend in an unrelated legal matter.
- J.B. later contacted Sarver seeking help with her own criminal case, and Sarver met her to discuss the matter over drinks.
- After discussing J.B.’s criminal situation, Sarver and J.B. had sex in Sarver’s vehicle.
- J.B. faced criminal charges and an arrest warrant; Sarver told her to turn off her phone’s GPS so law enforcement could not track her location.
- J.B. avoided arrest for nearly a month before she was apprehended.
- Because J.B. was indigent, a court appointed Sarver to represent her in the criminal case.
- While serving as J.B.’s court-appointed counsel, Sarver continued to have sexual relations with her on multiple occasions over several months.
- During the same period, Sarver and J.B. trespassed onto Sarver’s neighbor’s property to use the neighbor’s hot tub.
- Detectives later interviewed J.B. in connection with her criminal case; J.B. disclosed that she and Sarver had sex multiple times and stated that Sarver had suggested he would help with her case in exchange for sex.
- Sarver ultimately pleaded guilty to four misdemeanor offenses connected to telling J.B. to turn off her GPS and the hot-tub trespass; as part of the plea arrangement, he withdrew his candidacy for county prosecuting attorney.
- Disciplinary Counsel filed a complaint charging Sarver with professional-conduct violations based on the sexual relationship and related criminal and dishonest conduct.
- The Board of Professional Conduct recommended a two-year suspension fully stayed on conditions, but the matter proceeded to the Supreme Court of Ohio for final sanction review.

## Issues

1. What sanction is appropriate for an attorney who had sexual relations with a court-appointed criminal-defense client and engaged in related illegal and dishonest conduct, including advising the client to disable GPS to avoid arrest?

## Decision

- The Supreme Court of Ohio found clear and convincing evidence that Sarver committed professional misconduct, including:
  - Violating Prof.Cond.R. 1.8(j) by engaging in sexual activity with a client when no preexisting consensual sexual relationship existed before the attorney-client relationship began.
  - Violating Prof.Cond.R. 8.4(b) by committing illegal acts that adversely reflected on his honesty and trustworthiness (including conduct tied to the GPS advice and the trespass).
  - Violating Prof.Cond.R. 8.4(c) by engaging in conduct involving dishonesty, fraud, deceit, or misrepresentation in connection with the related events.
- The court rejected the Board’s recommendation of a fully stayed two-year suspension as insufficient given the seriousness of the misconduct and the need for a sanction that included an actual period of suspension.
- The court imposed a two-year suspension, staying the last 18 months on stated conditions, resulting in a six-month actual suspension.
- The stayed portion was conditioned on compliance with requirements imposed by the court (including no further misconduct and treatment/monitoring-related conditions), along with the obligations applicable to suspended attorneys.
- Sarver was ordered to pay the costs of the disciplinary proceeding.

## Legal Principles

- Prof.Cond.R. 1.8(j) bars a lawyer from soliciting or engaging in sexual activity with a client unless a consensual sexual relationship existed before the lawyer-client relationship began.
- Prof.Cond.R. 8.4(b) is violated when a lawyer commits an illegal act that adversely reflects on the lawyer’s honesty or trustworthiness.
- Prof.Cond.R. 8.4(c) is violated by conduct involving dishonesty, fraud, deceit, or misrepresentation.
- In setting sanctions, the Supreme Court of Ohio considers aggravating and mitigating factors, including prior discipline, pattern of misconduct, multiple offenses, cooperation, and other penalties already imposed (such as criminal convictions).
- The Supreme Court is not bound by the Board’s recommended sanction and may impose a more severe sanction when needed to protect the public and preserve confidence in the legal profession, including requiring an actual suspension in serious cases.

## Conclusion

The Supreme Court of Ohio disciplined Sarver for having sexual relations with an indigent criminal client he was appointed to represent and for related illegal and dishonest conduct, rejecting a fully stayed suspension and instead imposing a two-year suspension with six months actually served and the remaining 18 months stayed on conditions.


Disciplinary Counsel v. Sarver, 119 N.E.3d 405 (2018)