Disciplinary Counsel v. Martinez
146 Ohio St. 3d 212
| Ohio | 2016Background
- Martinez represented victim L.A. in obtaining a civil protection order and later communicated her desire not to pursue criminal charges against Thomas Castro.
- Castro (and others) faced criminal indictments for sexual offenses; Castro’s counsel (Calabrese) offered to settle potential civil claims in exchange for L.A. writing a favorable letter urging no jail time.
- Martinez, not retained for a civil suit, discussed and negotiated a contingent-fee settlement on L.A.’s behalf and communicated the settlement offer and its terms to her and to Castro’s counsel.
- After prosecutors considered the offer potentially illegal, L.A. indicated she would accept the deal to “trick [Castro] into getting busted for bribery”; Martinez then terminated representation and later proffered testimony to avoid greater criminal exposure.
- Martinez pleaded no contest to obstructing official business (second-degree misdemeanor); Calabrese and other lawyers involved were convicted or disbarred for related bribery schemes.
- The parties stipulated violations of Prof.Cond.R. 8.4(b), (c), and (d); the board and parties recommended a six-month suspension, fully stayed; the Supreme Court adopted that sanction, with a three-justice dissent arguing for a one-year suspension.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Martinez committed misconduct by participating in the bribery scheme | Disciplinary counsel: Martinez knowingly engaged in and facilitated an illegal bribery scheme and obstructed justice | Martinez: cooperated, testified for prosecution, accepted criminal sanction; mitigating facts warrant leniency | Court: Misconduct proven; violations of Prof.Cond.R. 8.4(b),(c),(d) adopted |
| Appropriate disciplinary sanction | Relator: sanction warranted given corruption of judicial process; parties jointly recommended stayed six-month suspension | Martinez: mitigation (no prior record, cooperation, remorse, criminal penalties) supports a stayed suspension | Court: Imposed six-month suspension, fully stayed, conditioned on no further misconduct |
| Weight of mitigation and aggravation | Relator acknowledged mitigation but stressed seriousness of bribery crimes | Martinez emphasized lack of prior discipline, cooperation, character, completion of criminal sentence | Court: Found mitigation persuasive; no aggravating factors identified; supported stayed suspension |
| Whether stay should be lifted on future misconduct | Implicit: stay must deter further wrongdoing and protect public | Martinez: accepts condition and risk of stay being lifted | Court: Stay will be lifted if Martinez commits further misconduct (i.e., will serve full six months) |
Key Cases Cited
- Disciplinary Counsel v. Grubb, 142 Ohio St.3d 521 (2015) (upheld stayed six-month suspension for lawyer convicted of a misdemeanor corrupting process)
- Disciplinary Counsel v. Calabrese, 143 Ohio St.3d 229 (2015) (disbarment following convictions for corrupt activity and bribery)
- Disciplinary Counsel v. Young, 102 Ohio St.3d 113 (2004) (bribery-related attempts to thwart justice can warrant disbarment)
- Disciplinary Counsel v. Blaszak, 104 Ohio St.3d 330 (2004) (mitigation can justify lesser sanction than indefinite suspension for bribery-related misconduct)
- Disciplinary Counsel v. Klaas, 91 Ohio St.3d 86 (2001) (one-year suspension, with six months stayed, for attorney convicted of obstruction-related conduct)