The Smell Of Essential Oils

A mother of defendant’s child who had hired counsel to secure relief for the incarcerated father  was subject to sexual advances from counsel, leading to a partially stayed two-year suspension from the Ohio Supreme Court

J.G. agreed to meet with Carter. Because she was a single parent, J.G. took her four children to Carter’s office and left them in the car, with her 16- year-old daughter supervising. J.G. testified that before entering Carter’s office, she set her cellphone to record the conversation so that she could relay the information to [McClain’s mother] Fabian. Upon entering Carter’s office, J.G. remarked on the smell of essential oils. Carter replied that one of the scents was called “slim and sexy” and told J.G. that she “[didn’t] need any more of that.” He also told J.G., “I was just trying to get you up here.”

J.G. inquired about McClain’s chances of obtaining judicial release, stating that she needed him out of prison and at home. Carter told her that he did not know whether the motions would be granted but that he would try his best. While Carter read the draft of the second motion out loud to J.G., she felt very anxious and took some antianxiety medication. Carter finished reading the motion and then, while gesturing to his lips or cheek, asked J.G. whether he could have his “reward.”

The board found that Carter then got up from behind his desk and approached J.G., who was scared. J.G. testified and the board found that Carter then put his hands on J.G.’s head and shoved her head into his genitals. J.G. performed fellatio on Carter. The board further found that Carter had also tried to pull J.G. onto the desk by her pants. At that point, she stopped and told Carter, “I can’t do this anymore,” and her recording stopped shortly thereafter. Before J.G. walked out of Carter’s office, he used his cellphone camera to take two pictures of her.

The next day, Carter left J.G. a voicemail message asking J.G. for her father’s phone number, which he intended to include in the motions for judicial release because J.G.’s father had agreed to employ McClain upon his release from prison. Carter refiled the motions in the two cases assigned to Judge Marcelain, and the judge denied them a second time. Carter acknowledged that the motions were premature and agreed to refile them at no charge, which he did in December 2020.

Carter did not disclose his conduct with J.G. to McClain, but after the court denied McClain’s motions for judicial release a third time in February 2021, J.G. told McClain what had happened. McClain then wrote to Carter, expressing his dissatisfaction with Carter’s legal representation and his conduct with J.G. He also wrote to the Licking County Bar Association, alleging that Carter had assaulted J.G.

Respondent was untruthful to police investigating the conduct, claiming that J.G. made unreciprocated advances to him

He also told the detective that he was not initially truthful because he was concerned that the incident would affect his law license.

Sanction

In this case, Carter exploited his attorney-client relationship with his incarcerated client, McClain, by luring J.G., the mother of McClain’s young child, to his office and by coercing her into engaging in a sexual act to reward him for his legal work. During the ensuing criminal investigation of that conduct, he falsely denied that it had occurred, and then when confronted with evidence that he was lying, he placed all the blame for his misconduct on his victim. His continued refusal to acknowledge the seriousness and wrongfulness of his conduct with J.G. not only undermines public confidence in the legal profession but is evidence that he poses a real and continuing threat to his clients—the vast majority of whom are indigent criminal defendants—and the public at large. For these reasons, we overrule Carter’s third objection and find that his misconduct warrants a sanction greater than the six-month actual suspension from the practice of law recommended by the board. We conclude that a two-year suspension, with one year conditionally stayed—which is comparable to the sanction we imposed in Russ—combined with the CLE requirements recommended by the board, is the appropriate sanction for Carter’s misconduct.

(Mike Frisch)