“My Attorney Is A Creep *** And I’m Stuck With Him”
The Ohio Supreme Court has ordered a two-year suspension with one year stayed
In June 2021, the Muskingum County Court of Common Pleas, Juvenile Division, appointed Russ to represent C.L. against allegations that her newborn daughter, K.P., was an abused, neglected, or dependent child. Russ did not know C.L. or have a sexual relationship with her before that appointment. C.L. was a vulnerable client in that (1) she was a young mother facing the possibility of losing custody of her child, who had tested positive for the presence of fentanyl at birth, (2) she had a mental disorder, and (3) she did not have the support of her parents.
After Russ was appointed to represent C.L., he began communicating with her by text message. He offered C.L. a job working in his law office and encouraged her to confide in him. After learning that she had issues with her family (particularly her father), he offered to serve as a father figure, adding that he wanted to help give her stability and build her self-esteem, confidence, and independence. He also texted her that he would treat her the way she should be treated.
Intermingled with those offers of help, support, and encouragement were Russ’s express solicitations of a sexual relationship with C.L. Russ texted C.L. that he “want[ed]” her and that he was “interested in a relationship” with her. Over the course of several days, Russ’s solicitations became more overt. After Russ texted C.L., “I think we have that Daddy/daughter dynamic goin’ on,” he suggested that he could spend considerable time with her and stated that he was “sexually attracted” to her.
Russ’s texts soon escalated with comments like, “[B]tw you have a nice body,” followed immediately by “[C]an’t wait to get my hands all over it.” Later, he texted C.L. that he wanted her to “be [his] woman,” then added, “I want your p* * *y little girl” and “Show me a little of what’s mine.” Russ confessed to C.L. that he had always wanted a young girlfriend about the age of his daughter with whom he could share “the Daddy/daughter dynamic in and out of the bedroom,” and he suggested that treating C.L. as a “girlfriend/daughter” was “a big turn on for [him] sexually.”
Even before Russ’s overt sexual advances had begun, C.L. became uncomfortable with his messages and texted her daughter’s father, “My attorney is a creep. And I’m stuck with him * * *.” She later disclosed Russ’s inappropriate sexual solicitations to the guardian ad litem (“GAL”) assigned to her case. Based on that information, the GAL filed a grievance with relator.
He had denied the allegations until confronted with the text messages.
During his disciplinary hearing, Russ acknowledged that he had no intention of admitting that he had sent the text messages to C.L. until he realized at his deposition that relator already had copies of the messages. He also admitted that his statements in response to relator’s letter of inquiry were false and that he had made them in an attempt to shift blame away from himself and onto C.L.
He had been tardy or failed to appear in several scheduled court matters.
Sanction
After reviewing the record and our applicable precedent, we agree with the board’s assessment that Russ’s misconduct is more akin to that in Benbow, Cox, Porter, and Sarver than that in Mismas and Detweiler. Because Russ has suggested that his sexually oriented misconduct may be rooted in longstanding psychological issues and because he had completed only eight treatment sessions at the time of his disciplinary hearing, we agree that a two-year suspension, with one year conditionally stayed, coupled with the recommended conditions on Russ’s reinstatement, is necessary to protect the public from future harm.
(Mike Frisch)