Sex With Clients Draws Suspension, Probation In Ohio

The Ohio Supreme Court has suspended an attorney who had sex with two vulnerable clients, both of whom had complained after he ended the relationships. 

When reinstated, his interactions with female clients will be closely monitored.

The story

In December 2018, M.H. retained Porter, who was then employed by Barr, Jones & Associates, L.L.P. (“Barr Jones”), to represent her in her divorce. At that time, M.H. was a recovering alcoholic who was living and working at a California rehabilitation facility, from which she had recently graduated. Her three children were living in Ohio with their father. She had no prior relationship with Porter.

Although M.H.’s divorce was contentious, it was finalized in May 2019 and Porter continued to represent M.H. in several postdecree matters. By July 2019, Porter and M.H. had begun to exchange inappropriate and sexually suggestive text messages.

On July 12, Porter filed a motion for contempt against M.H.’s former spouse and included an affidavit that was purportedly signed by M.H. and notarized by Porter on July 11. Porter later admitted that he had signed M.H.’s name to the affidavit and notarized that signature, fraudulently attesting that he had personally observed M.H. sign the document, before filing it with the court.

In August and September, M.H. twice flew to Ohio to attend postdecree hearings. After each hearing, Porter and M.H. had sexual intercourse in M.H.’s hotel room. As M.H. was returning to California at the conclusion of her September trip, Porter broke up with her.

M.H. then complained to the firm, which directed him to self-report to Disciplinary Counsel.

A second client

On October 3, A.H. invited Porter to dinner to celebrate a favorable ruling in her criminal case. Porter—who still was representing A.H. in both cases— accepted the invitation. After dinner, A.H. asked Porter whether he wanted to see a movie and they drove to the theater in separate cars. At the theater, Porter asked A.H. to get into his car, where they engaged in intimate physical contact. Porter suggested that they go to his nearby apartment, and A.H. agreed. There, they engaged in sex.

Over the next two weeks, Porter and A.H. exchanged numerous text messages. On October 15—the day on which Porter’s employer confronted him about his inappropriate relationship with M.H.—A.H. sent Porter a text message informing him that she had not been able to sleep for a few nights and that she “couldn’t tell anybody” and asking whether she was a “horrible person now.” Porter responded, “No not at all let’s not tell anyone.” And when A.H. asked what would happen if she got pregnant, Porter told her, “[You have] nothing to worry about but we will work together to hide it.”

The following day, Porter reported his misconduct with M.H. to relator but failed to mention that he had engaged in similar misconduct with A.H.

Although the firm was unaware of the A. H. relationship, it removed him from the case and terminated his employment.

A.H. filed a bar complaint

In his response to that grievance, Porter repeatedly and falsely stated that their inappropriate relationship did not begin until November 2019, after his employer had removed him from her case. He characterized A.H.’s grievance as frivolous and claimed that her reports that their relationship occurred during their attorney-client relationship were “fraudulent,” that she had “mental issues” and an “evil motive,” and that she was “clearly acting on emotions and anger” after he ended their relationship. At his disciplinary hearing, however, he admitted that his response to disciplinary counsel was a complete fabrication.

Sanction

While it is true that it was Porter who first brought his inappropriate relationship with M.H. to relator’s attention, he hardly did so voluntarily. Indeed, the board found that Porter made that report only because his firm’s partners had informed him that they would report his misconduct to disciplinary counsel if he did not do so himself. Moreover, Porter’s initial report to relator actively concealed the fact that he had engaged—and continued to engage—in the same type of misconduct with A.H.

In his response to A.H.’s grievance six months later, Porter attacked A.H.’s character and credibility as he repeatedly and falsely claimed that their personal relationship did not commence until after the attorney-client relationship had ended. Although Porter has since admitted that his response to that grievance was a complete fabrication, he continues to deny responsibility for his actions and claim that his misconduct was not as egregious as that of other attorneys sanctioned by this court, because, according to him, his inappropriate relationships with M.H. and A.H. were consensual and initiated by his clients.

…Sean Richard Porter is suspended from the practice of law for two years with the second year stayed on the conditions that he (1) contact OLAP to schedule a mental-health assessment within 60 days of the issuance of this order and, if OLAP determines that treatment is necessary, enter into an OLAP contract for a duration to be determined by OLAP and comply with all treatment recommendations, (2) comply with the requirements of Gov.Bar R. V(23)(A) during the term of his suspension, (3) commit no further misconduct, and (4) pay the costs of this proceeding.

And

Upon reinstatement to the practice of law, Porter shall be required to cooperate with a monitoring attorney appointed by relator for two years. The monitoring attorney, who may be a supervising attorney in a law firm that employs Porter, shall be responsible for preapproving all professional relationships with prospective female clients, monitoring approved relationships, and reviewing all written, electronic, and verbal communications with Porter’s female clients. If Porter fails to comply with any condition of the stay, the stay will be lifted and he will serve the entire two-year suspension.

(Mike Frisch)