Disciplinary Counsel v. Noble
| Citation | 2022 Ohio 2190 |
| Decision Date | 29 June 2022 |
| Docket Number | 2021-1519 |
| Parties | Disciplinary Counsel v. Noble. |
| Court | United States State Supreme Court of Ohio |
Submitted January 25, 2022
On Certified Report by the Board of Professional Conduct of the Supreme Court, No. 2021-017.
Joseph M. Caligiuri, Disciplinary Counsel, for relator.
Coughlan Law Firm, L.L.C., and Jonathan E. Coughlan, for respondent.
{¶ 1} Respondent, Michael Allen Noble, of Ravenna Ohio, Attorney Registration No. 0088639, was admitted to the practice of law in Ohio in 2012.
{¶ 2} In a June 2021 complaint, relator, disciplinary counsel, alleged that Noble had committed five ethical violations by engaging in an inappropriate sexual relationship with a client and making false statements about his conduct to opposing counsel, a police chief, and a municipal court.
{¶ 3} The parties submitted stipulations of fact and misconduct and numerous stipulated exhibits. Noble testified before a three-member hearing panel of the Board of Professional Conduct. The panel and the board each issued a report finding that Noble had committed the charged misconduct and recommending that we suspend him from the practice of law for one year, with six months stayed on conditions. No objections have been filed. Based on our review of the record and our precedent, we adopt the board's findings of misconduct and recommended sanction.
{¶ 4} In September 2018, Jane Doe met with Noble to discuss the termination of her marriage, and she chose to have Noble represent her. Initially, Doe's meetings with Noble focused solely on her legal matter, but within a week or two, she and Noble began expressing feelings for each other. After three or four meetings, they commenced a sexual relationship that continued for almost two years.
{¶ 5} In November 2018, Doe's husband, D.P retained counsel and informed him that Noble was having an affair with Doe. By December, Noble had filed a complaint for divorce on Doe's behalf. Shortly thereafter, D.P.'s counsel met with Noble and asked him if he was having a sexual relationship with Doe; Noble denied the relationship. D.P.'s counsel commented that if Noble was in a sexual relationship with Doe, it would be a good time to withdraw from the case. Noble again denied his relationship with Doe.
{¶ 6} Noble later told Doe that he had lied to opposing counsel about their relationship and that she should obtain new counsel to represent her. In January 2019, Noble withdrew from Doe's divorce case and transferred her entire retainer to her new attorney. Doe's divorce became final in August 2019.
{¶ 7} Based on the foregoing, the parties stipulated and the board found that Noble's conduct violated Prof.Cond.R. 1.8(j) () and 4.1(a) (). We adopt these findings of misconduct.
{¶ 8} In 2020, Noble was campaigning as a judicial candidate for a seat on the Portage County Court of Common Pleas while also attempting to reconcile with his ex-wife. He did not inform his ex-wife that he was still dating Doe, and he did not want his relationship with Doe to become public knowledge.
{¶ 9} In April 2020, DP - a police officer-confronted Noble in the parking lot outside Noble's office. By that time, Noble had been dating Doe for over 18 months. D.P. did not reveal his identity, and Noble claimed that he did not know who D.P. was-though D.P. repeatedly stated, "You know who I am." After about five minutes, both men drove away.
{¶ 10} In late May, Noble's ex-wife found a flirtatious text message from Doe on Noble's cell phone and confronted him about it. Noble denied having a physical relationship with Doe but told his ex-wife that Doe's ex-husband, D.P., was a police officer who had accused Noble of having an affair with Doe. Noble's ex-wife reached out to D.P., asked if he would be willing to share any information that he had about Noble and Doe, and arranged to meet him at a restaurant.
{¶ 11} The day before Noble's ex-wife was scheduled to meet D.P., she was in a pizzeria when a man approached her and said that he thought he knew her. When she questioned how he knew her, the man said that he knew her husband. When she returned home that night, she found a manila envelope in her mailbox. The envelope contained a handwritten letter purportedly written by Doe that detailed her affair with Noble, a picture of Noble and Doe seated at a reception table, and a picture of a man and woman engaging in sexual intercourse. She could not clearly see the faces of the man and woman in the latter picture.
{¶ 12} When Noble's ex-wife arrived at the restaurant to meet with D.P. the next day, she observed the same man from the pizzeria walk by her and sit at the bar. Shortly thereafter, D.P. entered the restaurant and had a cordial conversation with Noble's ex-wife for about an hour. He showed her a picture of Noble and Doe at a wedding reception and told her that they were still involved in a romantic relationship. D.P. recorded the conversation.
{¶ 13} After that meeting, Noble's ex-wife began to suspect a connection between D.P., the man from the pizzeria and the bar, and the envelope that had been left in her mailbox. She told Noble that if he was being truthful about his relationship with Doe, they needed to report D.P.'s behavior to the police because she felt that D.P. was harassing her. Noble once again denied his relationship with Doe.
{¶ 14} On June 5, 2020, Noble arranged a meeting with D.P. through his counsel. During that meeting, Noble claimed that he had a recording of D.P.'s meeting with Noble's ex-wife. Noble did not actually have a recording of the meeting between D.P. and Noble's ex-wife, but unbeknownst to Noble, D.P. had recorded the meeting. Noble attempted to use his purported recording as leverage and offered to "put an end" to the situation by having both men agree to have no further contact with the family of the other. When D.P. stated that he had done nothing wrong Noble told him, "You admitted some things on that tape that I am sure your superiors wouldn't be too happy about." The meeting ended without resolution.
{¶ 15} On June 7, Noble's ex-wife contacted the police department in the city where she lived and told an officer that she was fearful of DP. coming to her home. On the officer's advice, she sent D.P. a text message asking him not to contact her again, and he complied with that request. Two days later, Noble and his ex-wife met with the chief of the police department where D.P. worked in a neighboring county. During that meeting, Noble told the police chief that D.P. had accused him of sleeping with D.P.'s ex-wife, Doe. Noble misrepresented the nature of his relationship with Doe, expressly denying that they had engaged in a physical relationship.
{¶ 16} At the conclusion of that meeting, Noble and his ex-wife both filed written personnel complaints against D.P. Noble's complaint related to the April 2020 encounter with D.P. in the parking lot of Noble's office. His ex-wife claimed that D.P. had insisted on meeting with her, that he had tried to probe her for information about Noble's past, and that he had attempted to make her believe that Noble was "involved in affairs [and] other illegal activities." She also included information about the envelope that had been left at her home and the man who had approached her at the pizzeria and later sat at the bar during her meeting with D.P. Based on those complaints, the police department commenced an internal investigation into D.P.'s conduct.
{¶ 17} D.P. appeared with his lawyer and a union representative for a formal investigatory interview. He denied having any connection to the envelope or the man from the pizzeria and the bar. He also gave the investigating officer the recordings of his parking-lot encounter with Noble, his meeting with Noble's ex-wife, and his meeting with his attorney and Noble. After a full investigation, D.P. was cleared of any wrongdoing.
{¶ 18} In July 2020, however, Noble and his ex-wife were charged with first-degree-misdemeanor counts of falsification and making false alarms for the complaints they had filed against D.P. The charges against Noble were eventually dismissed, and his ex-wife pleaded guilty to an amended charge of disorderly conduct, a minor misdemeanor.
{¶ 19} In December 2020, Noble petitioned to seal the record in his dismissed criminal case. The prosecutor objected, and the court set the matter for a hearing. When cross-examined at that hearing, Noble testified that he did not lie to the police chief. He testified that he had complained to the police chief about D.P. harassing him in the parking lot of his office, stating, But when the prosecutor asked, "You lied in front of a public official while you were making a complaint to that public official?" Noble replied, "Fair enough." The court denied Noble's petition to seal the record, noting that Noble had admitted to lying to the police and that the statute of limitations for the dismissed charges had not elapsed. The court also expressed concern that sealing the record might impede the board's ability to fulfill its obligations.
{¶ 20} Noble stipulated and the board found that this conduct violated Prof.Cond.R. 3.3(a) (...
To continue reading
Request your trial