Butler Cnty. Bar Ass'n v. Blauvelt
| Decision Date | 23 June 2022 |
| Docket Number | 2022-0149 |
| Citation | 2022 Ohio 2108 |
| Parties | Butler County Bar Association v. Blauvelt. |
| Court | Ohio Supreme Court |
Submitted March 29, 2022
On Certified Report by the Board of Professional Conduct of the Supreme Court, No. 2021-018.
Repper-Pagan Law, Ltd., and Christopher J. Pagan, for relator.
Daniel J. Hurr, for respondent.
{¶ 1} Respondent, Scott Nicholas Blauvelt, of Hamilton Ohio, Attorney Registration No. 0068177, was admitted to the practice of law in Ohio in 1997.
{¶ 2} On June 17, 2020, after Blauvelt pleaded guilty to charges of public indecency and reckless operation of a vehicle, we suspended Blauvelt from the practice of law for two years, with the entire suspension conditionally stayed for engaging in conduct that adversely reflected on his fitness to practice law. Butler Cty. Bar Assn. v. Blauvelt, 160 Ohio St.3d 333, 2020-Ohio-3325, 156 N.E.3d 891. And on September 25, 2020, we suspended Blauvelt for an interim period pursuant to Gov.Bar R. V(19)(B) upon finding that there was substantial, credible evidence demonstrating that he had engaged in conduct that violated the Ohio Rules of Professional Conduct and posed a substantial threat of serious harm to the public. Butler Cty. Bar Assn. Certified Grievance Commt. v. Blauvelt, 160 Ohio St.3d 1287, 2020-Ohio-4576, 159 N.E.3d 1198. That suspension remains in effect.
{¶ 3} In a June 2021 complaint, relator, the Butler County Bar Association, alleged that Blauvelt's convictions on three additional counts of public indecency adversely reflect on his fitness to practice law. The parties submitted stipulated facts and exhibits. After a hearing, a three-member panel of the Board of Professional Conduct issued a report finding that Blauvelt had committed the charged misconduct and recommending that he be indefinitely suspended from the practice of law with certain conditions on his being reinstated to the profession. The board adopted the panel's findings of fact, conclusions of law, and recommended sanction. No objections have been filed. For the reasons that follow, we adopt the board's findings of misconduct and indefinitely suspend Blauvelt from the practice of law in Ohio.
{¶ 4} Blauvelt's June 2020 stayed suspension arose from an October 2018 traffic stop during which it was discovered that he had been driving nude. Blauvelt, 160 Ohio St.3d 333, 2020-Ohio-3325, 156 N.E.3d 891, at ¶ 6-7. Blauvelt now admits that during the first seven months of that suspension, he was charged with three additional incidents of public indecency for driving nude and exposing himself to other motorists-twice while masturbating. He entered pleas of guilty or no contest and was found guilty of all three charges. His sentences included fines; partially or fully suspended jail terms, which resulted in a 14-day jail stay; and terms of probation ranging from two to five years.
{¶ 5} Blauvelt admitted that in addition to the incidents that led to his criminal convictions, he had engaged in other similar incidents of public indecency for which he was not apprehended. However, none of his acts of public indecency have involved his clients.
{¶ 6} Since his most recent public-indecency conviction, Blauvelt has participated in the Butler County Area III Court, a mental-health court. In May 2021, he commenced a two-year outpatient treatment program for compulsive-sexual-behavior disorder. As part of that program, Blauvelt participates in weekly psychotherapy, alternating between individual and group sessions. He also attends Sex and Love Addicts Anonymous meetings (a 12-step program for sexual addiction) and continues to see a psychiatrist for treatment of his diagnosed bipolar disorder.
{¶ 7} At his disciplinary hearing, Blauvelt testified that he does not want to engage in any more acts of public indecency but conceded that he still wrestles with the urge to do so. He stated that he intends to complete the full two years of his outpatient treatment program and, after candidly acknowledging that his mental-health disorders will likely persist throughout his life, suggested that he may need to remain in treatment indefinitely.
{¶ 8} The board found that Blauvelt's conduct violated Prof.Cond.R. 8.4(h) (). We adopt this finding of misconduct.
{¶ 9} When imposing sanctions for attorney misconduct we consider all relevant factors, including the ethical duties that the lawyer violated, the aggravating and mitigating factors listed in Gov.Bar R. V(13), and the sanctions imposed in similar cases.
{¶ 10} The board found that three aggravating factors are present-Blauvelt has previously been disciplined for the same type of misconduct at issue in this case, acted with a dishonest or selfish motive, and engaged in a pattern of misconduct. See Gov.Bar R. V(13)(B)(1), (2), and (3). As for mitigating factors, the board found that Blauvelt exhibited a cooperative attitude toward the disciplinary proceedings and that other penalties and sanctions had been imposed for his misconduct. See Gov.Bar R. V(13)(C)(4) and (6). The board also found that Blauvelt expressed sincere remorse for his actions. Although Blauvelt presented evidence that he has a mental disorder that contributed to his misconduct and that he had been receiving treatment for that disorder for more than six months, the board did not afford any mitigating effect to that disorder, because Blauvelt did not offer a prognosis from a qualified healthcare professional that he would be able to return to the competent, ethical, and professional practice of law at a specific time in the future, see Gov.Bar R. V(13)(C)(7).
{¶ 11} Relator recommended that Blauvelt be indefinitely suspended from the practice of law, and the board agreed with that recommendation. The board noted that we have repeatedly held that" 'in determining the appropriate length of the suspension and any attendant conditions, we must recognize that the primary purpose of disciplinary sanction is not to punish the offender, but to protect the public'" Disciplinary Counsel v Agopian, 112 Ohio St.3d 103, 2006-Ohio-6510, 858 N.E.2d 368, ¶ 10, quoting Disciplinary Counsel v O'Neill, 103 Ohio St.3d 204, 2004-Ohio-4704, 815 N.E.2d 286, ¶ 53. Here, the board was troubled by the fact that Blauvelt's misconduct continued even though he (1) had previously been disciplined for virtually identical conduct, (2) found the circumstances of his conduct to be personally and professionally embarrassing, and (3) knew he was causing harm to others. The board noted that while Blauvelt may eventually find a way to discontinue his compulsive...
To continue reading
Request your trial