Disciplinary Counsel v. Bunstine
131 Ohio St. 3d 302
| Ohio | 2012Background
- Respondent Edward R. Bunstine, admitted to practice in 1981, faced a disciplinary complaint in Aug. 2010 over conduct in a criminal matter involving acquaintances.
- Board found violations of Prof.Cond.R. 8.4(d) and (h); did not initially find 8.4(c).
- The panel recommended dismissal of the charge and a public reprimand; the Board later concluded 8.4(c) was also violated and urged a six‑month suspension.
- The Court accepted the Board’s findings and recommended sanction, but stayed the six‑month suspension.
- Facts centered on affidavits prepared for the DeLongs in connection with a sheriff’s investigation, alleged non‑retention of the affidavits, and a later second affidavit; respondent accepted $1,000 from Creed, and the conduct culminated in a no‑contest plea to two counts of disorderly conduct.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether respondent violated 8.4(c). | Disciplinary Counsel argues misrepresentation in actions and representations. | Bunstine contends no genuine attorney‑client relationship and actions were in DeLongs’ interest. | Yes; 8.4(c) violated. |
| Whether respondent violated 8.4(d). | Disciplinary Counsel asserts conduct prejudicial to justice. | Bunstine claims actions were intended to aid the DeLongs. | Yes; 8.4(d) violated. |
| Whether respondent violated 8.4(h). | Disciplinary Counsel argues conduct adversely reflects on fitness to practice. | Bunstine maintains no adverse reflection. | Yes; 8.4(h) violated. |
| Whether a six‑month suspension (stayed) is an appropriate sanction. | Suspension should be imposed to reflect serious misconduct. | Stayed suspension warranted to avoid full disruption; past clean record. | Six‑month suspension stayed on condition of no further violations. |
Key Cases Cited
- Stark Cty. Bar Assn. v. Buttacavoli, 96 Ohio St.3d 424 (Ohio 2002) (guidance on sanctions in professional misconduct cases)
- Disciplinary Counsel v. Broeren, 115 Ohio St.3d 473 (Ohio 2007) (considers mitigating and aggravating factors in BCGD Rule 10(B))
- Disciplinary Counsel v. Ricketts, 128 Ohio St.3d 271 (Ohio 2010) (stayed six‑month suspension where conduct involved misrepresentations and motive shown as not malicious)
- Disciplinary Counsel v. Potter, 126 Ohio St.3d 50 (Ohio 2010) (discusses default sanction standards for 8.4(c) violations)