On Tuesday, October 29, 2024, the Supreme Court of Ohio suspended attorney Vincent A. Dugan Jr. from practicing law for one year. The suspension is fully stayed, contingent upon his commitment to avoid any further misconduct.
The case is entitled “In the Matter of Vincent A. Dugan Jr.,” with case no. 2023-1095.
According to the court’s opinion, Dugan has been licensed to practice law in Ohio since 1983 and primarily practices in the area of domestic relations. In August 2022, a judicial officer referred a client who was otherwise unable to hire a lawyer to Dugan. He agreed to represent the client pro bono in her pending divorce.
The day after agreeing to take her case, Dugan began exchanging text messages with the client. Around midnight, after discussing a hearing, Dugan sent the client a series of explicit and lewd messages soliciting a sexual relationship. Over the following weeks, Dugan continued sending the vulnerable client suggestive messages, offers to give her a massage, and messages saying he was feeling “really horny.”
In mid-October, the client accused Dugan of ignoring her case because she had rejected his advances. Dugan claimed he did not remember many of the earlier messages, saying he had been drunk when sending them. The client chose to continue with Dugan as her pro bono lawyer because her case was close to settling.
After the divorce was finalized in December, the client filed a grievance against Dugan in January 2023. Dugan admitted to “sexual wordplay” with the client in his response but denied other allegations. In July, disciplinary counsel filed a complaint with the Board of Professional Conduct.
Dugan and disciplinary counsel stipulated that Dugan’s conduct violated professional conduct rules prohibiting a lawyer from soliciting or engaging in sexual activity with a current client. The parties agreed there were three aggravating factors: Dugan had a prior disciplinary record from 2007, he acted with a selfish motive, and the client was vulnerable.
Mitigating factors included Dugan seeking rehabilitation on his own by stopping drinking, resuming church attendance, hiring a clinical psychologist, and changing his law practice policies. Dugan also fully cooperated with the disciplinary investigation and demonstrated remorse.
Based on the stipulations and Dugan’s testimony, the board found Dugan committed the misconduct by clear and convincing evidence and recommended a fully stayed one-year suspension. No objections were filed with the Supreme Court.
In its opinion, the Court agreed Dugan’s text messages seriously betrayed his client’s trust and the integrity of the attorney-client relationship. However, the Court found the mitigating factors balanced with the aggravating factors.
The Court considered similar prior cases involving soliciting vulnerable clients and determined Dugan’s dishonesty warranted a less severe sanction than cases involving more egregious conduct or denials of wrongdoing. Given Dugan’s rehabilitative efforts and acceptance of responsibility, the Court believed the stayed suspension is enough to protect the public.
The Disposition states:
“Accordingly, Vincent A. Dugan Jr. is suspended from the practice of law in Ohio for one year with the entire suspension stayed on the condition that he commit no further misconduct. If Dugan fails to comply with the condition of the stay, the stay will be revoked and he will serve the full year-long suspension. Costs are taxed to Dugan.”
According to avvo.com, Mr. Dugan Jr. is a criminal defense attorney in Columbus, Ohio. He attended the Capital University Law School. He acquired his law license in Ohio in 1983.
A copy of the original filing can be found here.
