## Facts

- Michael Howard Siewert, an Ohio attorney admitted in 1984, represented Angelique Caldwell beginning in July 2009 in (1) a divorce, (2) pending domestic-violence charges, and (3) a civil-protection-order matter.
- In September 2009, Caldwell entered outpatient chemical-dependency treatment, and Siewert paid a significant portion of the treatment costs.
- By late September or early October 2009, while the representation was ongoing, the attorney-client relationship became a romantic and sexual relationship.
- By December 2009, Caldwell moved into Siewert’s home.
- Caldwell’s last pending legal matter (the divorce) concluded on December 16, 2009, when the decree was journalized.
- The romantic relationship continued until February 2010, when Caldwell relapsed and moved out.
- Siewert had prior discipline in 1988: a 24-month suspension with 18 months stayed for multiple violations, including neglect and failure to cooperate in a disciplinary investigation.
- Disciplinary Counsel filed a formal complaint in February 2011; the parties submitted a consent-to-discipline agreement with stipulated facts, violations, and sanction.

## Issues

1. Whether Siewert’s sexual and romantic relationship with a current client during active representation constituted professional misconduct under the Ohio Rules of Professional Conduct.
2. Whether the stipulated sanction—six-month suspension, fully stayed on specified conditions—should be approved.

## Decision

- The Supreme Court of Ohio accepted the consent-to-discipline agreement and found violations of Prof.Cond.R. 1.7(a)(2), 1.8(j), and 8.4(d).
- The court suspended Siewert for six months, with the entire suspension stayed on the condition that he commit no further misconduct.
- The court assessed costs against Siewert.

## Legal Principles

- A lawyer violates Prof.Cond.R. 1.8(j) by engaging in sexual activity with a client unless a consensual sexual relationship existed when the client-lawyer relationship began.
- A lawyer violates Prof.Cond.R. 1.7(a)(2) when the lawyer’s personal interests (including romantic or financial entanglements) materially limit the lawyer’s ability to represent a current client.
- Conduct intertwining a sexual relationship with ongoing client representation may constitute conduct prejudicial to the administration of justice under Prof.Cond.R. 8.4(d).
- In imposing discipline, the court may accept a consent-to-discipline agreement when stipulated misconduct and a proposed sanction are supported by the record and are appropriate in light of aggravating and mitigating factors, including prior discipline and client vulnerability.

## Conclusion

The Ohio Supreme Court approved discipline by consent for an attorney who began a sexual relationship with a current client during representation, holding that the conduct created a personal-interest conflict and violated the prohibition on sex with clients; it imposed a six-month suspension fully stayed on the condition of no further misconduct.


Disciplinary Counsel v. Siewert, 958 N.E.2d 946 (Ohio 2011)