Disciplinary Counsel v. Dann
134 Ohio St. 3d 68
| Ohio | 2012Background
- Respondent Marc Dann served as Ohio attorney general from Jan. 2007 to May 2008.
- Criminal charges in 2010 included soliciting improper compensation and filing false financial disclosures; he pled Alford to the former and pled guilty to the latter.
- The Board recommended a six-month suspension; Dann urged fully stayed suspension based on mitigating and public-safety considerations.
- The Board initially rejected the consent-to-discipline and remanded for further proceedings.
- Evidence showed improper housing arrangements for staff, campaign-fund–funded living expenses, and under-disclosed travel costs, along with prior discipline (2004 public reprimand).
- The Ohio Supreme Court ultimately overruled objections and imposed a six-month actual suspension, finding aggravating factors outweighed mitigating factors.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether six-month actual suspension is proper sanction | Dann argues for fully stayed suspension | Dann contends mitigating factors warrant stay | Six-month actual suspension warranted |
| Impact of prior discipline and AG status on sanction | Prior discipline supports greater sanction | Mitigating factors outweigh aggravation | Aggravating factors justify harsher sanction |
| Role of mitigating evidence (cooperation, restitution, community service) | Mitigating factors should lessen sanction | Mitigating factors insufficient to override aggravation | Mitigating factors insufficient to avoid six-month suspension |
| Effect of public-office duties on integrity concerns | AG position heightens harm to public trust | Misconduct summary; not unique to office | Public-office role elevates sanction |
| Comparison to other public-official disciplinary cases | Comparable cases show varied sanctions | Dann’s facts are more serious | Court distinguished and imposed six-month suspension |
Key Cases Cited
- Taft, 112 Ohio St.3d 155 (2006-Ohio-6525) (public official misconduct can warrant sanctions beyond reprimand)
- Carroll, 106 Ohio St.3d 84 (2005-Ohio-3805) (six-month stayed suspension appropriate where mitigating factors exist)
- Forbes, 122 Ohio St.3d 171 (2009-Ohio-2623) (six-month stayed suspension despite egregious conduct due to mitigating factors)
- Engel, 132 Ohio St.3d 105 (2012-Ohio-2168) (actual suspension justified by reckless conduct with public-harm)
- Lieberman, 163 Ohio St. 35 (1955) (prior disciplinary history may justify increased sanction)
- Hennekes, 110 Ohio St.3d 108 (2006-Ohio-3669) (public confidence in judiciary emphasizes integrity requirements)
- O’Neill, 103 Ohio St.3d 204 (2004-Ohio-4704) (discipline aimed at protecting public and profession)
- Hoskins, 119 Ohio St.3d 17 (2008-Ohio-3194) (misconduct by public official damages public perception)