2014 Ohio 2127
Ohio2014Background
- Attorney Lemieux admitted misconduct spanning multiple clients while abusing drugs/alcohol; interim remedial suspension ordered in 2011.
- Amended complaint added Counts involving Hubbard, Heise/Giguere, Pritchett, and Orr for neglect, misrepresentation, and failure to communicate.
- Board found violations of multiple Prof.Cond.R. rules (1.2, 1.3, 1.4, 1.5, 7.1, 8.1, 8.4) and Gov.Bar R. V(4)(G).
- Counts One, Two, Three, and Four established misconduct; Count Six involved trust-account violations; Count Five dismissed per panel.
- Panel recommended indefinite suspension with stringent reinstatement conditions and probation; Board adopted.
- Court indefinitely suspended Lemieux; reinstatement conditioned on comprehensive OLAP program, payments, and mental-health assessments.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Lemieux engaged in professional misconduct. | Lemieux engaged in neglect, misrepresentation, and failed cooperation. | Lemieux argues treatment and mitigation reduce fault. | Yes, misconduct proven on multiple counts. |
| Appropriate sanction for misconduct. | Indefinite suspension with stringent reinstatement conditions. | Mitigation favors less severe sanction given treatment. | Indefinite suspension with stringent reinstatement conditions warranted. |
| Role of chemical dependency as mitigating factor. | Chemical dependency supports mitigating treatment considerations. | Mitigation limited by causation and relapse risk. | Chemical dependency given limited mitigating effect; not excusing harm. |
| Reinstatement prerequisites after suspension. | Reinstatement contingent on restitution, treatment, and testing. | Appearances alone insufficient; strict conditions needed. | Reinstatement only after comprehensive OLAP, testing, restitution, and evaluations. |
Key Cases Cited
- Disciplinary Counsel v. Hoppel, 129 Ohio St.3d 53 (2011-Ohio-2672) (rehabilitation and monitoring can tailor indefinite suspensions)
- Cincinnati Bar Assn. v. Weaver, 102 Ohio St.3d 264 (2004-Ohio-2683) (disbarment typically presumptive for fee theft; mitigated by recovery efforts)
- Lawson v. Cincinnati Bar Assn., 119 Ohio St.3d 58 (2008-Ohio-3340) (indefinite suspension with monitoring for recovery possible)
- Garrity v. Disciplinary Counsel, 98 Ohio St.3d 317 (2003-Ohio-740) (egregious addiction-related misconduct may be repaired with monitoring)
- Disciplinary Counsel v. Anthony, 138 Ohio St.3d 129 (2013-Ohio-5502) (recognizes mitigating effect of chemical dependency in sanctioning)