2016 Ohio 653
Ohio2016Background
- Timothy Warren Camboni, admitted 2008, was charged after an incident with his former girlfriend that led to misdemeanor and felony charges; a no-contact order was imposed while criminal charges were pending.
- Camboni violated the no-contact order; the state moved to revoke bond twice, and after continued contact his bond was revoked in May 2014.
- The day after bond revocation he entered an Alford plea to one misdemeanor count of assault; felony charges were dismissed, and he was sentenced to jail time and fines.
- Disciplinary Counsel charged Camboni with violating Prof.Cond.R. 3.4(c) (knowingly disobeying a tribunal obligation); parties stipulated to facts and misconduct; an alleged Prof.Cond.R. 8.4(h) violation was dismissed.
- While the disciplinary proceeding was pending, Camboni pled guilty to another misdemeanor (OVI) and received probation and partial jail time; he enrolled in OLAP and attended AA meetings.
- The parties recommended a six-month fully stayed suspension (conditioned on OLAP cooperation); the board, noting the additional misdemeanor while proceedings were pending, recommended a one-year suspension, all stayed on conditions; the Supreme Court adopted that sanction.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Camboni violated Prof.Cond.R. 3.4(c) by contacting the victim despite a court order | Camboni knowingly disobeyed the court-imposed no-contact order, violating Prof.Cond.R. 3.4(c) | (Implicit) Contact occurred but mitigation and cooperation justify lenient sanction | Court adopted board finding that Camboni violated Prof.Cond.R. 3.4(c) |
| Appropriate disciplinary sanction for the violation | Six-month suspension stayed on condition of OLAP compliance (as stipulated) | Same (argued mitigation supports stayed suspension) | Court imposed one-year suspension, all stayed on condition of full OLAP compliance and no further misconduct |
| Impact of subsequent misdemeanor conviction during disciplinary proceedings | Aggravating: subsequent conviction justifies harsher sanction than initial recommendation | Mitigation (no prior discipline, cooperation, OLAP enrollment) should limit sanction | Court treated the new conviction as justification to increase from six months to one year (stay preserved) |
| Conditions for stay and consequences of noncompliance | Stay conditioned on OLAP compliance and no further misconduct | Camboni consented to OLAP condition | Court ordered stay conditioned on full compliance; failure lifts stay and activates one-year suspension |
Key Cases Cited
- Disciplinary Counsel v. Rohrer, 124 Ohio St.3d 65, 919 N.E.2d 180 (2009) (six-month suspension where lawyer willfully violated a judge’s order and made false statements)
- Richland Cty. Bar Assn. v. Brightbill, 56 Ohio St.3d 95, 564 N.E.2d 471 (1990) (public reprimand for misdemeanor convictions reflecting on fitness)
- Disciplinary Counsel v. Hillis, 139 Ohio St.3d 319, 11 N.E.3d 1156 (2014) (six-month fully stayed suspension for misdemeanor convictions while holding public legal position)