Disciplinary Counsel v. Cicero
982 N.E.2d 650
Ohio2012Background
- Cicero, admitted to Ohio bar in 1988, faced a complaint filed June 13, 2011 alleging violation of Prof.Cond.R. 1.18 and 8.4(h).
- Panel found Cicero violated 1.18 and 8.4(h) and recommended a six-month suspension; costs to Cicero.
- Relator objected; Court overruled objections, accepted panel findings, and suspended Cicero for one year.
- April 2010 raid on Edward Rife’s home; discussions between Cicero and Rife followed by a phone and in-person meeting.
- Cicero emailed Ohio State coach Tressel with confidential details learned from Rife on April 2–16, 2010; emails disclosed sensitive information about Rife’s case.
- Court held Rife was a prospective client and Cicero’s disclosure of confidential information violated 1.18(b) and 8.4(h); costs taxed to Cicero.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Rife was a prospective client and information learned was confidential | Relator; Rife was a prospective client with confidential discussions. | Cicero; Epling’s presence misleads about client status; argue limited protection. | Yes; Rife was a prospective client and information remained confidential. |
| Whether Cicero violated 1.18(b) by disclosing information to Tressel | Relator; disclosed detailed, non-generally known information. | Cicero; claimed information was generally known or non-confidential. | Yes; disclosure of specific confidential information violated 1.18(b) (and 8.4(h)). |
| Appropriate sanction given aggravating/mitigating factors | Sanction should reflect aggravating factors; likely suspension. | Prior discipline minimal aggravation; argue six-month stay possible. | One-year suspension with costs; balanced mitigating and aggravating factors. |
Key Cases Cited
- Disciplinary Counsel v. Cicero, 78 Ohio St.3d 351 (1997) (discusses prior discipline; context for sanctioning)
- Dye v. Columbus Bar Assn., 82 Ohio St.3d 64 (1998) (imposed substantial suspension; context for sanctions)
- Broeren v. Disciplinary Counsel, 115 Ohio St.3d 473 (2007) (aggravating/mitigating factors in sanctions)
- Wise v. Cuyahoga Cty. Bar Assn., 108 Ohio St.3d 164 (2006) (defers to panel credibility determinations)
- Kimmins v. Disciplinary Counsel, 123 Ohio St.3d 207 (2009) (one-year stayed suspension with fewer aggravating factors)
- Boggs v. Columbus Bar Assn., 39 Ohio St.3d 601 (1988) (sanction framework)
- Yurich v. Disciplinary Counsel, 78 Ohio St.3d 315 (1997) (discusses stayed suspensions; aggravation factors)
- Shaver v. Ohio Bar Assn., 2009-Ohio-1385 (2009) (sanction and aggravating factors)
- Psenicka v. Geauga County Bar Assn., 62 Ohio St.3d 35 (1991) (background on sanctions and conduct)