COSHOCTON — An attorney who previously labored in New Philadelphia has been suspended from practising regulation for two yrs, with one 12 months stayed, for possessing intercourse with a consumer and lying about it to authorities.
In its view, the Ohio Supreme Court stated Kevin C. Cox violated various policies governing the experienced conduct of legal professionals when he had sexual intercourse with a female he was representing for the duration of her divorce.
The court docket rejected Cox’s argument that he deserves only a community reprimand coupled with extra continuing authorized education and learning necessities for sending inappropriate textual content messages to his client.
Cox did not offer remark to a Coshocton Tribune reporter by 1:30 p.m. Wednesday as requested in an email and mobile phone message to his office.
What did Kevin C. Cox say about the allegations?
During the disciplinary proceedings, Cox denied owning a physical sexual romance with the lady. The courtroom found “the evidence clearly and convincingly demonstrates” the attorney had a sexual marriage with his customer, sent her sexually billed textual content messages and emails and lied about both of those aspects of the romantic relationship.
A grievance was submitted Dec. 3, 2020, against Cox with the Board of Specialist Conduct of the Ohio Supreme Court. A movie teleconference was held on the make a difference April 22 and 23, 2021. The board launched its results and sanction recommendations on Aug. 6, 2021. Punishment by the Ohio Supreme Courtroom has been pending considering that that time.
What did the panel say?
The board of conduct panel, in its findings, stated that Cox’s deficiency of candor in the course of the disciplinary system was “significantly disturbing.”
“Experienced he been forthright and contrite our conclusion and recommendation would have reflected his effort to truthfully address the make any difference,” the panel wrote. “Rather, we think his response to the inquiry quantities to an effort at coverup and reveals a particular person not committed to correcting his behavior.”
The panel reported the woman’s testimony was conveyed with a feeling of forthrightness and candor and she came off a lot more credible than Cox. This integrated her stating no thoughts of bitterness or anger toward Cox and that she was involved for what affect proceedings would have on his occupation.
Cox commenced working towards regulation in 2001 and was assigned the divorce circumstance in question when operating for the McCleery Legislation Business in New Philadelphia in November 2017.
“The allegations against Lawyer Cox ended up significant, and we felt strongly that we experienced an moral obligation to report this matter to the Supreme Court for a full investigation,” mentioned Gregory J. McCleery, managing lawyer.
“Following we referred the make any difference for an investigation by disciplinary counsel, we had a number of inner conversations on how very best to carry on, and planned to acquire motion at the time the investigation decided no matter if these messages originated from Attorney Cox,” McCleery instructed The Occasions-Reporter in an electronic mail.
“The articles of the messages was inappropriate, but at first we were being not ready to ensure who was dependable,” he wrote. “In March 2020, two months just after the investigation commenced, Lawyer Cox resigned and opened his own business in Coshocton.”
What did Kevin C. Cox confess to?
Although Cox initially denied any sexual romance and omitted any reference to textual content and e mail messages associated to a letter of inquiry, he admitted to sending “wildly inappropriate” sexual messages through the listening to. The panel said Cox’s response to the letter of inquiry and deposition was false or incomplete on many points.
“His testimony to the panel was not truthful on a number of issues of verifiable reality,” the panel wrote. “At no time did he admit the extent of his connection with his customer, nor acknowledge any inappropriate conduct that could not be independently verified.”
The grievance states the two engaged in sexual intercourse on quite a few events in excess of several months. Courtroom files incorporate text discussions and email messages with at least a person exchange featuring explicit sexual converse.
Situations-Reporter staff members writer Nancy Molnar contributed to this story.