Dayton Bar Assn. v. O'Neal
134 Ohio St. 3d 361
| Ohio | 2012Background
- O’Neal Sr., admitted in 1981, previously suspended in 1995 with probation; probation terminated in 1997.
- In 2011 Dayton Bar Association charged him with mishandling and neglect of two probate matters for Alicia Wingo’s estates.
- Panel questioned his cognitive abilities; a psychiatric evaluation diagnosed age-associated cognitive decline.
- Board recommended two-year suspension, 18 months stayed, with conditions including CE and additional evaluations and OLAP involvement.
- Court adopted the panel’s findings but imposed two-year suspension with 18 months stayed, and added reinstatement prerequisites including geriatric assessment and OLAP contract.
- Costs taxed to O’Neal; reinstatement contingent on fitness evaluations and continued monitoring under Gov.Bar R. V(9).
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether misconduct is proven. | O’Neal violated multiple Rules of Professional Conduct. | Respondent disputes extent or specifics but acknowledges issues. | Misconduct established; certain charges dismissed. |
| Whether age-associated cognitive decline mitigates sanction. | Decline should be weighed as mitigating factor. | Age-related decline relevant but not mitigating enough to avoid discipline. | Decline not a mitigating factor underProc.Reg. 10(B)(2)(g) but relevant to sanction. |
| Appropriate sanction for misconduct. | Two-year suspension with conditions appropriate. | Agree with sanctions but seek additional conditions. | Two-year suspension with 18 months stayed and conditioned reinstatement. |
| Reinstatement requirements. | Reinstatement should require monitoring and assessment. | Agree with conditions; require OLAP contract and evaluations. | Reinstatement conditioned on geriatric assessment and OLAP contract, plus monitoring. |
Key Cases Cited
- Stark Cty. Bar Assn. v. Buttacavoli, 96 Ohio St.3d 424 (Ohio 2002) (aggravating/mitigating factors in discipline)
- Disciplinary Counsel v. Broeren, 115 Ohio St.3d 473 (2007-Ohio-5251) (use of aggravating/mitigating factors and procedure)
- Cincinnati Bar Assn. v. Hartke, 132 Ohio St.3d 116 (2012-Ohio-2443) (weighing factors beyond explicit list in Proc.Reg.)
- Disciplinary Counsel v. O’Neill, 103 Ohio St.3d 204 (2004-Ohio-4704) (public protection purpose of discipline)