In a contentious move, the Ohio Supreme Court has issued a stern rebuke to a former U.S. prosecutor, Mark Bennett, who openly admitted to engaging in sexual misconduct. Despite the admission, the court has allowed Bennett to continue practicing law without interruption, a decision that has sparked dissent from a justice who sees it as a troubling “step in the wrong direction.”
The court’s 4-2 decision argues that Bennett, a former assistant U.S. attorney in Akron, should face a two-year suspension for misconduct involving a 24-year-old law school intern under his supervision. However, the suspension would be deferred unless Bennett engages in further misconduct.
Bennett’s attorney, Richard Koblentz, expressed satisfaction with the court’s decision, stating, “We are gratified the court saw it was appropriate not to remove him from the practice of law.” Meanwhile, Bennett has not provided immediate comments in response to the ruling.
Contrary to Bennett’s suggested six-month “stayed” suspension, the court’s decision imposes a more substantial penalty, though it falls short of the Ohio attorney ethics board’s recommendation. The Board of Professional Conduct proposed a six-month license revocation for Bennett’s “open and notorious” unprofessional behavior.
The case, originating from Bennett’s tenure as a prosecutor from 2007 until his resignation in 2020, revealed his inappropriate requests for nude photos from the intern and discussions about his marital sex life with her. The intern also accused Bennett of inappropriate physical contact in a law library.
While expressing regret and remorse for his actions, Bennett’s conduct, according to the Ohio justices, warranted punishment. However, Chief Justice Sharon Kennedy dissented strongly, asserting that Bennett had “demeaned both the legal profession and his government office” and should face a temporary license suspension.
Kennedy’s dissent criticized the majority ruling for sending a message that attorneys in positions of power can engage in prolonged sexual harassment without facing consequences. The state Office of Disciplinary Counsel supported Bennett’s argument for a deferred suspension, emphasizing that his actions, while inappropriate, did not warrant an actual license suspension.
Bennett, who established a law office in northern Ohio in 2020, lists defense work, internal investigations, and commercial litigation as his areas of practice.
The case is identified as Disciplinary Counsel v. Mark S. Bennett, Ohio Supreme Court, No. 2023-0471.
