Cleveland Metropolitan Bar Association v. Heben
150 Ohio St.3d 335, 2017 Ohio 6965, 81 N.E.3d 469 (2017)
Rule of Law:
An attorney violates the Rules of Professional Conduct regarding client confidentiality when publicly disclosing sensitive client information, even if ostensibly for permissible reasons like establishing a claim or mitigating client fraud, if such disclosures are not strictly necessary, are excessively broad, or fail to incorporate proper safeguards to limit public access.
Facts:
- Edward Joseph Heben Jr. briefly represented Jennifer Cecchini during the initial stages of her divorce case in 2008.
- In September 2013, Cecchini again requested Heben's legal assistance for the same pending divorce proceedings.
- Cecchini paid Heben a $3,000 retainer on or about September 15, 2013, and Heben filed a notice of appearance in her divorce case on September 16, 2013.
- Less than two weeks after retaining him in 2013, Cecchini terminated Heben's legal services.
- Heben submitted an affidavit with his motion to withdraw as Cecchini’s counsel, publicly recounting communications about the scope of his representation and compensation, accusing her of refusing to pay fees, and disclosing legal advice.
- In the affidavit, Heben described Cecchini's discharge as "retaliatory" and alleged it was due to his advice concerning her "objectionable and potentially illegal actions" relating to her ex-husband.
- The judge presiding over Cecchini’s divorce case found the affidavit's disclosures of attorney-client communications to be inappropriate and not necessary for purposes of seeking withdrawal, subsequently striking it from the record.
Procedural Posture:
- Relator, Cleveland Metropolitan Bar Association, charged respondent, Edward Joseph Heben Jr., with professional misconduct in two client matters before the Board of Professional Conduct of the Supreme Court of Ohio.
- A three-member panel of the Board of Professional Conduct found Heben violated Prof.Cond.R. 1.6(a) but dismissed all other charges, recommending a one-year suspension with six months conditionally stayed.
- The Board of Professional Conduct issued a report adopting the panel’s findings and recommended sanction.
- Heben filed objections to the board’s report with the Supreme Court of Ohio, acknowledging his failure to comply with Prof.Cond.R. 1.6(a) but arguing the recommended sanction was too severe and warranted only a public reprimand or fully stayed suspension.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does an attorney violate the Rules of Professional Conduct regarding client confidentiality (Prof.Cond.R. 1.6(a)) by publicly filing an affidavit disclosing sensitive client information, including legal advice and alleged misconduct, ostensibly to justify withdrawal or non-payment of fees, even if exceptions for establishing a claim or mitigating client fraud exist?
Opinions:
Majority - Per Curiam
Yes, Edward Joseph Heben Jr. violated Prof.Cond.R. 1.6(a) by publicly filing an affidavit disclosing sensitive client information, including legal advice and alleged misconduct, because his disclosures were not reasonably necessary for any permissible exception and lacked proper safeguards. The court rejected Heben's argument that Prof.Cond.R. 1.6(b)(5), allowing disclosure to establish a claim or defense in a controversy between lawyer and client, applied because he never filed a motion for fees and the disclosed information went "well beyond what would have been necessary" to prove fee entitlement. The court also rejected Heben's reliance on Prof.Cond.R. 1.6(b)(3), permitting disclosure to mitigate substantial injury from a client's illegal or fraudulent act where the lawyer's services were used. His vague assertions did nothing to mitigate injury, and he failed to establish Cecchini had used his legal services for fraudulent acts. Furthermore, even if an exception applied, Heben failed to follow proper protocol by not notifying Cecchini about the allegations prior to filing the affidavit and not attempting to limit public access to the document, as advised by the comments to Prof.Cond.R. 1.6. The court imposed a one-year suspension, fully stayed on the condition of no further misconduct, considering Heben's unblemished 41-year legal career and other mitigating factors (no prior disciplinary record, cooperative attitude, good character references), distinguishing his case from others involving dishonesty and multiple rule violations.
Dissenting - O'Connor, C.J. and Fischer, J.
While implicitly agreeing with the finding of misconduct, the dissenting justices would have imposed a more stringent sanction. The dissent would suspend respondent for one year with six months stayed, suggesting that some period of actual suspension from the practice of law was warranted for the severity of the confidentiality breach, rather than a fully stayed suspension.
Analysis:
This case underscores the paramount importance of attorney-client confidentiality and provides a strict interpretation of the limited exceptions allowing disclosure. It clarifies that even when a lawyer believes an exception applies, such as to recover fees or address client fraud, disclosures must be strictly 'reasonably necessary,' limited in scope, and accompanied by efforts to protect client interests and privacy, such as seeking protective orders. The court's decision also illustrates how an attorney's long, unblemished career and other mitigating factors can influence the severity of sanctions, even for serious ethical violations, distinguishing misconduct involving a single breach from a pattern of dishonesty or multiple rule infractions.
