Disciplinary Counsel v. Engel, 132 Ohio St. 3d 105

Engel served as chief legal counsel for the Ohio Department of Public Safety from December 2007 to May 2010.
He directed DPS IT to create an email filter to capture DPS emails to/from media and emails from the inspector general’s office, despite a DPS policy that gave no right of privacy to state emails.
The filter intercepted confidential communications related to investigations by the inspector general, Ohio Ethics Commission, U.S. Attorney, and DOJ, and copies were forwarded to Engel and others not authorized to receive them.
Engel disclosed these confidential communications; he was charged with and pleaded guilty to three third-degree misdemeanor counts of disclosing inspector-general information, receiving a 30-day suspended jail sentence and $750 fines on each count.
Relator sought discipline; the Board approved a panel’s recommendation of a public reprimand but ultimately this Court suspended Engel for six months actual suspension, adopting the board’s findings and rejecting the public-reprimand sanction.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Did Engel violate the professional conduct rules?	Engel violated 8.4(d) and (h) by disclosing confidential information and acting prejudicially.	Engel did not intend to disclose; the filter captured information by mistake and was not used to harm; mitigating factors apply.	Yes; court adopts board findings of misconduct under 8.4(d) and (h).
What sanction is appropriate for Engel’s misconduct?	Relator urged six-month stayed suspension.	Engel urged public reprimand; argues less severe sanction warranted.	Six-month actual suspension is appropriate.
What role do mitigating/aggravating factors play in sanction?	Mitigating factors (no prior discipline, cooperation, criminal penalties) weigh toward lesser sanction.	No aggravating factors; harm limited to self; personal character evidence supports leniency.	Mitigating factors present; board concluded no aggravators; court still imposes six-month suspension.
Does conduct undermine public trust beyond personal harm to Engel?	Distribution of confidential law-enforcement/ethics information undermines public trust in government and justice.	Harm primarily affected Engel and DPS; not broader trust issues.	Court finds conduct undermines public trust and justifies a greater sanction than a reprimand.

Disciplinary Counsel v. Taft, 112 Ohio St.3d 155 (2006-Ohio-6525) (public-fitness-adverse-reflection consideration for sanctions)
Stark Cty. Bar Assn. v. Buttacavoli, 96 Ohio St.3d 424 (2002-Ohio-4743) (aggravating/mitigating-factor framework for sanctions)
Disciplinary Counsel v. Forbes, 122 Ohio St.3d 171 (2009-Ohio-2623) (sanction proportionality; assess penalties against misconduct)