Ohio Attorney in Hot Water After Sex With Indigent Client

An attorney’s punishment for having sex with this indigent client shouldn’t depend on whether the client’s case was prejudiced by the relationship, the Ohio Supreme Court said.

The disciplinary counsel’s handling of the proceedings against Jason Sarver amounted to victim shaming, the Nov. 28 opinion by Justice Sharon L. Kennedy said.

J.B. was indigent and Sarver was appointed as her attorney. They had sex at least seven times over the next four months, including one time when they trespassed on his neighbor’s property to use the hot tub.

With J.B.'s help, the police arrested Sarver for several crimes related to the relationship.

The disciplinary counsel noted that J.B. got a better plea deal in her underlying case for testifying against Sarver. He was arrested twice, had to spend two nights in jail, was in the press, and had to give up his candidacy for local prosecutor, counsel also noted.

Disciplinary counsel suggested a two-year suspension, stayed as long as Sarver didn’t violate any other rules.

But the rules prohibit lawyers from having sex with clients regardless whether his client is harmed, the court said. The disciplinary board seemed to blame J.B. for the negative consequences Sarver experienced, and ignored the fact he exploited the attorney-client relationship, it said.

A sexual relationship between an attorney and client during a professional relationship is insidiously harmful, the court said. Only 18 months of the suspension should be stayed, it said.

Dissenting Justice Patrick F. Fischer, joined by Chief Justice Maureen O’Connor and Justice Mary Degenaro, argued that only 12 months of Sarver’s suspension should be stayed.

The case is Disciplinary Counsel v. Sarver, 2018 BL 436763, Ohio, No. 2017-1081, 11/28/18.