Office of Disciplinary Counsel v. Booher
Cases that cite this one
18 later published cases cite this decision.
- Disciplinary Counsel v. Sarver. (Ohio 2018)
- In re Robert Lee Vogel, BPR 023374 (Tenn. 2016)
- Cleveland Metropolitan Bar Ass'n v. Sleibi (Ohio 2015)
- Akron Bar Assn. v. Fortado (Slip Opinion) (Ohio 2020)
- Disciplinary Counsel v. Krieger (Ohio 2006)
- Disciplinary Counsel v. Freeman (Ohio 2005)
- Disciplinary Counsel v. Porter (Slip Opinion) (Ohio 2021)
- Disciplinary Counsel v. Talikka (Ohio 2013)
- Disciplinary Counsel v. Bunstine (Ohio 2013)
- Office of Disciplinary Counsel v. Moore (Ohio 2004)
- Cleveland Bar Ass'n v. Feneli (Ohio 1999)
- Cleveland Bar Assn. v. Feneli (Ohio 1999)
- Office of Disciplinary Counsel v. Booher (Ohio 1997)
- Disciplinary Counsel v. Booher (Ohio 1997)
- Disciplinary Counsel v. Bartels (Slip Opinion) (Ohio 2016)
- Disciplinary Counsel v. Owen (Ohio 2014)
- Cincinnati Bar Assn. v. Hartke (Ohio 2012)
- Disciplinary Counsel v. Booher (Ohio 1996)
This list shows which later cases cite this one. It does not say how they treated it, and no review of that has been done. Not a substitute for Shepard’s or KeyCite — verify before relying.
Opinion of the Court
We concur with the board’s findings of fact and conclusions of law, but believe that a more severe sanction is warranted. The case before us involves court-appointed counsel for a criminal defendant. The lawyer-client relation in a criminal matter is inherently unequal. The client’s reliance on the ability of her counsel in a crisis situation has the effect of putting the lawyer in a position of dominance and the client in a position of dependence and vulnerability. The more vulnerable the client, the heavier is the obligation upon the attorney not to exploit the situation for his own advantage. Whether a client consents to or initiates sexual activity with the lawyer, the burden is on the lawyer to ensure that all attorney-client dealings remain on a professional level. Respondent failed to meet that burden.
Moreover, the client was in jail. Respondent was able to meet with her only because of his position as her counsel. The privacy provided to respondent and his client for legal consultation was available only because respondent was acting as an “officer of the court.”
In view of the foregoing, respondent is hereby suspended from the practice of law for one year. Costs taxed to respondent.
Judgment accordingly.
Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.