Sex Addiction Not A Mitigating Factor In Ohio

The Ohio Supreme Court has suspended an attorney for two years with six months stayed on conditions.

Three judges would have ordered an indefinite suspension.

The Cleveland Metropolitan Bar Association had asked the court to reject mitigation based on a treatable sex addiction

We agree with relator that sex addiction is not a recognized mental health disorder under the DSM-IV or the DSM-5 and thus is not a diagnosable condition for purposes of meeting the criteria set forth in BCDG Proc.Reg. 10(B)(2)(g). Despite our agreement with relator on this matter, we agree with the panel and board that Risen’s testimony regarding Sleibi’s anxiety and depression, which led him to act out sexually, is sufficient on its own to support a finding that Sleibi suffers from a mental-health disability.

The misconduct is described in the report of the Board of Commissioners on Grievances and Discipline

This case involves a practicing attorney who had intimate sexual relations with four separate female clients. The parties submitted written stipulations in which Respondent admitted that a sexual relationship did not exist with any of the clients when the attorney-client relationship commenced, and that Respondent engaged in prohibited sexual activity with each of the four clients during the time period covered by the attorney-client relationship. The panel finds that each of the four clients was a willing participant in the sexual activity with Respondent.

Respondent was admitted to the practice of law in the state of Ohio on November 10, 2003. Respondent is a graduate of Case Western Reserve University School of Law. Respondent is currently 38 years old and is married with two children. Respondent is currently practicing as a sole practitioner in the Cleveland area, focusing primarily on individual bankruptcies, criminal misdemeanors, and traffic offenses…

Since Respondent’s marriage to his wife in 2004 and up until March 2011, Respondent engaged in many sexual relationships with women in addition to the four clients. However since March 2011, Respondent has been in continuous and extensive therapy and a self-help program in order to address his sexual problems and has successfully avoided relapsing into his former sexual behavior.

One client had an “intense consensual” relationship with the attorney

An attorney-client relationship is often inherently unequal because of the client’s dependence on the lawyer and the client’s unfamiliarity with the legal system and procedures. HW was particularly vulnerable to Respondent’s sexual advances because of her youth and the fact that she was dependent on Respondent to protect her from potential fines and jail time. Now six years later, HW believes that Respondent exploited the attorney-client relationship with her and that such exploitation has taken an emotional toll on her.

She never filed a bar complaint.

He had a one-time  intimate encounter with another client.

He had an affair with a bankruptcy client that that resulted in a pregnancy. They argued over an abortion and she  miscarried. 

SM was vulnerable to Respondent’s advances. She was at the time experiencing severe financial problems and contemplating divorce. She admits to having been flattered by Respondent’s initial attentions: “I never received that type of attention from anybody. * * * Things in my life were a little bit in turmoil at that point and I was surprised and just kind of taken off guard by it.”

SM was later convicted of telephone harassment of the attorney after he had his attorney instruct her to cease communications.

The fourth client filed criminal rape charges against the attorney. The charges were dropped and the disciplinary prosecutor failed to prove that the sex was non-consensual. 

LF invited Respondent back to her house one week later on January 6, 2011 to pick up certain documents relating to the bankruptcy. No one else was present at her home on January 6, 2011, except for Respondent and Relator [sic – I assume that disciplinary counsel was not present]. LF provided no credible explanation as to why she would have invited Respondent back to her apartment for a private meeting to pick up documents if she had been forced to have sex with Respondent just one week previously at the same apartment or that she had been fearful of him.

Mitigation found by the board led to this proposed condition

The evidence establishes that Respondent has experienced a sustained period of successful treatment. Respondent has consulted with Risen for the last 39 months. In the beginning, he met with her every two weeks, now it is once per month. Respondent has continued with his drug therapy prescribed by Dr. Pallas. Respondent remains an active participant in the 12-step program known as Sex and Love Addiction (SLAA).

The board had recommended a two-year suspension with one year stayed on conditions.

Oral argument before the court is linked here. (Mike Frisch)