Pillow Talk

Two attorneys who had violated the duty of confidentiality received stayed six-month suspensions from the Ohio Supreme Court

In December 2017, relator, disciplinary counsel, charged Holmes and Kerr with violating the professional-conduct rules for improperly disclosing confidential client information. The Board of Professional Conduct considered the case on the parties’ consent-to-discipline agreements. See Gov.Bar R. V(16).

In their agreements, Holmes and Kerr stipulated that after meeting at a conference in November 2014, they commenced a personal relationship. At the time, they each primarily represented public school districts in their respective law practices. Between January 2015 and November 2016, they exchanged more than a dozen e-mails in which they revealed client information to each other, including information protected by the work-product doctrine or the attorney-client privilege, although they were not employed by the same law firm and did not jointly represent any clients. In general, Kerr forwarded to Holmes e-mails from her clients requesting legal documents. In response, Holmes forwarded to Kerr e-mails that he had exchanged with his clients which included similar documents he had prepared for them. Holmes and Kerr stipulated that in about one-third of these email exchanges, Holmes had ultimately completed Kerr’s work for her.

 In June 2016, Holmes’s law firm discovered that he had disclosed confidential client information to Kerr and, as a result, removed him from the firm. A partner in Holmes’s former law firm also filed a grievance against him, and the law firm’s counsel notified Kerr’s employer of the e-mail exchanges. Kerr consequently admitted to the partners of her firm that she and Holmes had exchanged client information and that he had assisted her with her work.

Notwithstanding relator’s commencement of an investigation, Kerr continued to send confidential client information to Holmes and he continued to assist her in preparing legal documents for her clients. In November 2016, Kerr resigned from her law firm.

The court

We agree that Holmes and Kerr engaged in the stipulated misconduct and that based on our precedent, a stayed six-month suspension is appropriate. We therefore adopt the parties’ consent-to-discipline agreements.

(Mike Frisch)