Cleveland Metropolitan Bar Association v. Azman
147 Ohio St. 3d 379
| Ohio | 2016Background
- Azman, admitted in Ohio (2011) and inactive since Feb 2015, was fired from Piscitelli Law Firm on Aug 29, 2013.
- He retained and used former colleagues’ email login credentials to access firm email accounts at least 20 times in the following two-and-a-half weeks.
- After receiving a threatening reply from Piscitelli about potential legal action, Azman deleted email exchanges (including the threatening message) from firm accounts; police traced access to his IP address.
- Piscitelli declined to press criminal charges after Azman agreed to report the conduct to the Cleveland Metropolitan Bar Association; Azman initially admitted access but later denied deleting emails in a deposition.
- At the disciplinary hearing Azman admitted he deleted emails and stipulated to the charges; the Board found violations of Prof.Cond.R. 3.4(a), 8.1(a), 8.4(c), and 8.4(d).
- The Board recommended a one-year suspension with six months stayed; the Supreme Court adopted that sanction conditioned on no further misconduct and payment of costs.
Issues
| Issue | Relator's Argument | Azman's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Unauthorized access of firm email accounts | Azman accessed others’ email without authorization, violating duties of honesty and professional conduct | (Implicitly) contested scope but ultimately admitted access | Court found unauthorized access and violation of Prof.Cond.R. 8.4(c) |
| Destruction/alteration of potential evidence | Deleting firm emails (including communications threatening legal action) unlawfully altered/destroyed evidentiary material | Initially denied purposeful deletion at deposition; later admitted at hearing | Court found deletion violated Prof.Cond.R. 3.4(a) and 8.4(d) |
| False statement in disciplinary process | Azman knowingly lied in a deposition about deleting emails, undermining the disciplinary process | At hearing he recanted and admitted deletion | Court found violation of Prof.Cond.R. 8.1(a) |
| Appropriate sanction | Recommended one-year suspension with six months stayed based on misconduct and comparable precedent | Agreed to stipulation and accepted recommended sanction | Court adopted one-year suspension, six months stayed on conditions (no further misconduct; pay costs) |
Key Cases Cited
- Disciplinary Counsel v. Engel, 132 Ohio St.3d 105 (2012) (six-month suspension for lawyer who allowed interception/retention of confidential emails and failed to stop it)
- Disciplinary Counsel v. Robinson, 126 Ohio St.3d 371 (2010) (one-year suspension where attorney removed confidential firm documents, destroyed some to conceal possession, and lied under oath)