Akron Bar Assn. v. DiCato, 130 Ohio St. 3d 394

DiCato, an Ohio attorney, was investigated for misconduct following a telephone confrontation with a judge’s bailiff; he failed to answer the complaint, leading to a default process.
A master commissioner found misconduct for undignified, discourteous conduct and implying the judge’s dishonesty, based on a single outburst.
The conduct included calling the judge a “lying, cheating bitch” during fee-application discussions; the judge held him in contempt.
DiCato pled guilty at a contempt hearing, was sentenced to 48 hours in jail (suspended) and fined $500.
The Board found violations of Prof.Cond.R. 3.5(a)(6), 8.2(a), and 8.4(h); it did not find a violation of 3.5(a)(1).
The Supreme Court imposed a six-month suspension, stayed on the condition of no further misconduct, with costs taxed to DiCato.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether DiCato violated Rules 3.5(a)(6), 8.2(a), 8.4(h).	Relator: violations established.	DiCato: only 3.5(a)(1) not proven; others denied.	Yes; violations established.
Whether a six-month stayed suspension is the appropriate sanction.	Relator seeks harsher sanction (two-year suspension).	Mitigating factors support non-disruptive sanction.	Six-month stayed suspension appropriate.

Disciplinary Counsel v. Grimes, 66 Ohio St.3d 607 (1993) (publicly reprimanded for disrespect toward judge and related conduct)
Bar Assn. v. Milano, 9 Ohio St.3d 86 (1984) (one-year suspension for egregious court decorum violations)
Disciplinary Counsel v. Broeren, 115 Ohio St.3d 473 (2007) (consideration of aggravating/mitigating factors in discipline)