Loading...
In a recent decision, the Ohio Supreme Court has delivered a rebuke to Mark Bennett, a former assistant U.S. attorney in Akron, who openly admitted to engaging in sexual misconduct. Despite the acknowledgment of wrongdoing, the court’s ruling allows Bennett to continue practicing law without immediate suspension, which has sparked dissent and raised concerns about the legal system’s response to such misconduct.
Court’s Verdict
In a 4-2 decision, the justices determined that Bennett deserved a two-year suspension for inappropriate conduct involving a 24-year-old law school intern working in his office. However, the suspension would only be enforced if Bennett engages in further misconduct, leading to criticism from those who believe a more decisive action should have been taken.
Want to know if you’re earning what you deserve? Find out with LawCrossing’s salary surveys.
Legal Perspectives
Bennett’s lawyer, Richard Koblentz, expressed satisfaction with the court’s decision, stating they were “gratified the court saw it was appropriate not to remove him from the practice of law.” The court’s punishment exceeded Bennett’s recommendation of a six-month “stayed” suspension. Still, it fell short of the Ohio attorney ethics board’s suggestion of a six-month license revocation for what they deemed “open and notorious” unprofessional behavior.
Details of Misconduct
The court’s decision outlined Bennett’s inappropriate actions, revealing that he had asked the intern to send him nude photos and engaged in discussions about his marital sex life with her. Additionally, the intern alleged that Bennett had inappropriately touched her breasts with the back of his hand in a law library within the U.S. attorney’s office.
Get JD Journal in Your Mail
Subscribe to our FREE daily news alerts and get the latest updates on the most happening events in the legal, business, and celebrity world. You also get your daily dose of humor and entertainment!!
Bennett’s Response
Mark Bennett did not immediately respond to a request for comment, but the court noted his expression of regret and remorse for his misconduct in their order.
Dissenting Opinion
Chief Justice Sharon Kennedy dissented, expressing concern that the majority ruling sends the wrong message to attorneys and the public. Kennedy argued that Bennett had “demeaned both the legal profession and his government office” and advocated for temporarily losing his license.
Kennedy’s dissent highlighted the potential implications of the decision, stating that it could convey to attorneys and the public that those in positions of power could engage in sexual harassment without facing significant consequences.
Disciplinary Office’s Stance
The state Office of Disciplinary Counsel supported Bennett’s argument for a stayed licensed suspension. The disciplinary office and Bennett’s lawyer asserted that while the behavior was inappropriate, it did not warrant the same punishment as instances where actual suspensions were imposed.
Bennett’s Current Status
According to state records, Bennett registered a law office in northern Ohio in 2020. His website indicates that he specializes in defense work, internal investigations, and commercial litigation. The controversy surrounding the court’s decision raises questions about the adequacy of disciplinary measures in attorney misconduct cases.
Don’t be a silent ninja! Let us know your thoughts in the comment section below.
