Akron Bar Assn. v. Dismuke
2011 Ohio 1444
Ohio2011Background
- Respondent Daniel K. Dismuke was admitted to the Ohio bar in 2001 and was suspended in 2009 for failure to register for the 2009–2011 biennium.
- Relator Akron Bar Association charged two counts: neglect of two client matters and failure to cooperate with disciplinary investigation.
- Respondent admitted the violations and presented mitigating facts; a panel found clear and convincing misconduct evidence for both counts.
- The panel and board recommended a two-year suspension with the second year stayed on conditions, including probation and compliance with CLE and OLAP requirements.
- The court adopted the board’s sanction, conditioning reinstatement on treatment and mental-fitness proof, and delaying commencement until registration suspension ends and registration is current.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether two-year suspension with six months stayed is appropriate. | Dismuke argues for the proposed stayed term. | Akron Bar asserts a substantial suspension is warranted given multiple offenses. | Two-year suspension with second year stayed on conditions. |
| Whether misconduct in neglect and failure to cooperate supports the sanction. | Relator relies on multiple offenses and lack of cooperation. | Dismuke contends mitigation factors; inconsistencies exist in conduct. | Aggravating factors present; sanction affirmed. |
| Whether mental-health considerations affect reinstatement conditions. | Court should require standard reinstatement procedures. | Dismuke has underlying mental-health issues contributing to misconduct. | Reinstatement conditioned on medical proof of fitness to practice. |
Key Cases Cited
- Cleveland Metro. Bar Assn. v. Gresley, 127 Ohio St.3d 430 (2010-Ohio-6208) (two-year suspension with final six months stayed for similar misconduct)
- Akron Bar Assn. v. McNerney, 122 Ohio St.3d 40 (2009-Ohio-2374) (two-year suspension with second year stayed for failure to preserve client funds and related duties)
- Stark Cty. Bar Assn. v. Buttacavoli, 96 Ohio St.3d 424 (2002-Ohio-4743) (relevance of sanctions and comparable conduct in determining discipline)
- Disciplinary Counsel v. Broeren, 115 Ohio St.3d 473 (2007-Ohio-5251) (aggravating/mitigating factors framework for disciplinary decisions)