Brown County attorney suspended for pressuing client for sex

The Supreme Court of Ohio Tuesday suspended a Brown County attorney for one year, with six months stayed, for repeatedly pressing a client to perform sexual favors in exchange for making her case a priority.

In its per curiam opinion, the Supreme Court rejected a proposal by the Board of Professional Conduct that Bruce Wallace of Mt. Orab receive a fully stayed six-month suspension. The Court noted that Wallace did not admit that he was attempting to coerce his client for sex until after disciplinary investigators played him the conversation secretly recorded by his client.

In addition to pressuring his client, Wallace implied he could improperly influence the judge presiding over her case because the judge used to be an attorney who worked for Wallace’s law firm.

The Court found Wallace’s actions warranted a greater sanction than a fully stayed suspension and imposed the one-year suspension with six months stayed if he meets certain conditions.

Chief Justice Sharon L. Kennedy and Justices R. Patrick DeWine, Joseph T. Deters, Daniel R. Hawkins, and Megan E. Shanahan joined the per curiam opinion. Justice Patrick F. Fischer dissented without a written opinion. Justice Jennifer Brunner did not participate in the case.

Woman Asks Attorney to Represent Her in Custody Case
In August 2022, the client asked Wallace to represent her in a parenting dispute regarding her 3-year-old daughter. The client informed Wallace that she wanted to proceed quickly in filing for a court-ordered visitation schedule out of her concern that the child’s father would file a similar request in another county.

Wallace met the client for the first time on a Friday at his office. During the meeting, he asked numerous questions to the effect of, “How serious are you about getting what you want for your daughter?” and “How far would you be willing to go to get what you want?”

Although unsure what Wallace meant, she responded she would do whatever she needed to ensure that her daughter was cared for.

Wallace told the client he would represent her for a flat fee of $2,500 plus a $240 filing fee, which she would have to pay before he would start working on the case. The client paid the $240 filing fee, but told Wallace she could not pay his fee until the following Monday. He agreed to the payment schedule and asked the client if she was available over the weekend to discuss the case.

Attorney Lures Client to Office
The next day, Wallace texted the client. to determine if she had been served with papers by the child’s father, and to ensure she wanted to follow through with the process. Wallace later called, reiterating that she was willing to cross any lines to obtain her objective, and told her he had “connections” with the juvenile court judge who was once an associate in his law office. Wallace claimed he had favors he could call in, but wanted to be sure the client was someone for which he should use a favor.

Wallace told the client to come to his law office, and after arranging for child care, she went to his office alone. Before entering, she set her cellphone to record their meeting because she was “uneasy” about what Wallace might ask of her.

Wallace was the only person in the office, and the meeting began in a conference room. They discussed the case for about 20 minutes before Wallace redirected the conversation to what the client was willing to do to demonstrate her seriousness about the case. He asked her to leave her belongings in the conference room and led her down a hallway to his personal office, which had a desk and a couch. The client told disciplinary investigators she became highly uncomfortable at that point.

As they were walking, Wallace discovered her cellphone in her back pocket and grabbed it. He said, “Here. Hang on. I’ll just get this out of here. These things make me nervous.” He then attempted to take her phone back to the conference room.

The client told him she needed her phone in case her mother or daughter needed to reach her.

In the office, he invited the client to “show” him how serious she was, and she asked Wallace what he wanted. He replied, “In my position, I am not in a place where I can do that. I have to leave that to you.”

She asked him what would happen if she did “the thing,” and he replied, “Your case gets priority.” She asked what would happen if she did not cooperate, and he said he would still handle her case but suggested it may not get priority scheduling.

After further conversation, the client ultimately declined Wallace’s invitations and left the office. As she left, he asked her to inventory her tattoos and text pictures of all of them. She did not comply.

Case Quickly Ended, Client Filed Grievance
The following week, Wallace paid the juvenile court the filing fee and filed a motion on the client’s behalf to establish parenting time. Less than a month later, the client texted Wallace requesting that the motion be dismissed . Wallace had the matter dismissed, and he did not charge the client for any of the work he performed on her case.

The client submitted a grievance against Wallace with the Office of Disciplinary Counsel. In her grievance, the client wrote, “I have never in my life felt so violated by someone just by their ability to dance around what they wanted without saying what they wanted.”

She explained that any parent would go to the ends of the earth for their child, but to be a good parent “doesn’t mean that they should have to ‘voluntarily’ give something of themselves to a man that they are already paying or planning to pay to represent them.”

The disciplinary counsel filed a complaint with the Board of Professional Conduct, charging Wallace with ethics rule violations.

When Wallace first responded to a letter of inquiry from the disciplinary counsel, he claimed he intended to get the client to realize the importance of the matter and encourage her to seek financial assistance to secure her payment to him. He admitted the true intentions only after hearing the client’s recording of the conversation.

The disciplinary counsel and Wallace stipulated, and the board found, that Wallace violated the rules by soliciting sexual activity from a client when there was no consensual sexual relationship prior to the client-lawyer relationship. He also improperly implied an ability to improperly influence a government official.

Supreme Court Considered Sanction
When imposing a sanction in a disciplinary case, the Court considers aggravating circumstances  that could increase the penalty and mitigating factors  that could lead to a lesser sanction.

The board found Wallace acted with a dishonest or selfish motive, committed multiple offenses, and harmed a vulnerable client. It also found he had no prior discipline in his 41 years of practice, cooperated with the disciplinary proceedings, and presented evidence of his good character and reputation.

Although not a mitigating factor, Wallace also submitted evidence showing that he experienced a mental health crisis after the board initiated the formal complaint against him. He entered into a two-year mental health contract with the Ohio Lawyers Assistance Program (OLAP) in 2024.

The opinion stated there is no doubt Wallace understood his conduct with the client violated his ethical duties, and he told her as much when he declined to answer her questions about exactly what he wanted from her.

“On these facts, we concluded that Wallace’s repeated and brazen attempts to convince the client to engage in sexual conduct with him, coupled with his suggestion that he could use his relationship with the judge to influence the client’s case, warrant a sanction greater than the conditionally stayed six-month suspension recommended by the parties and the board,” the Court concluded.

Six months of Wallace’s suspension was stayed on the condition that he not engage in further misconduct, comply with his OLAP contract, and pay the costs of the disciplinary proceedings.