2018 Ohio 5091
Ohio2018Background
- Richard A. Oviatt, an attorney since 1967, represented John Selwyn in a 1985 default judgment against Jeff Grimes; efforts to collect led to a bankruptcy adversary proceeding in 1987.
- Oviatt sought revival of the dormant judgment in 2012 (filed June 4, 2012; refiled Jan. 16, 2014 after service defect). Trial court revived the judgment; the Eighth District reversed, finding revival was untimely. Ohio Supreme Court declined review.
- Grimes sued Selwyn and Oviatt in 2015 for malicious prosecution and related torts; in responding, Oviatt accused the appellate judges of corruption and attached portions of a disciplinary complaint he had filed against them.
- Relator (disciplinary counsel) investigated; Oviatt refused some inquiries about malpractice insurance and failed to cooperate fully, leading to a contempt citation in a prior proceeding.
- The Board found violations of Prof.Cond.R. 8.2(a) (false/impeaching statements about judges), Gov.Bar R. V(8)(A)(1) (breach of grievance confidentiality), and rules requiring cooperation with disciplinary investigations. The panel recommended a one-year suspension (six months stayed); the Supreme Court adopted misconduct findings but imposed a fully stayed six-month suspension conditioned on an OLAP evaluation and compliance.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Oviatt violated Prof.Cond.R. 8.2(a) by accusing appellate judges of corruption and undue influence | Relator: Oviatt’s public allegations lacked a reasonable factual basis and were made with knowledge or reckless disregard of falsity | Oviatt: Allegations were made to vindicate client interests and based on appellate opinion; followed client instructions | Held: Violation — Oviatt had no reasonable factual basis, made assertions without investigation; misconduct adopted |
| Whether filing the disciplinary complaint in the civil case breached confidentiality (Gov.Bar R. V(8)(A)(1)) | Relator: Inclusion made the grievance public and violated confidentiality rule | Oviatt: Client-directed disclosure; client has right to make documents public | Held: Violation — making the disciplinary complaint part of the public court record breached confidentiality |
| Whether Oviatt refused to cooperate with disciplinary investigation (Prof.Cond.R. 8.1(b), Gov.Bar R. V(9)(G)) | Relator: Oviatt declined to answer questions about malpractice insurance and discovery, impeding investigation | Oviatt: Relator lacked jurisdiction to inquire into malpractice insurance absent a written grievance | Held: Violation — relator has authority to investigate matters that come to its attention; Oviatt’s selective refusal constituted failure to cooperate |
| Appropriate sanction for the misconduct | Relator: Suspension appropriate, relying on precedents disciplining similar attacks on judiciary | Oviatt: Sanction excessive; long unblemished 51-year career and client-driven conduct merit leniency | Held: A fully stayed six-month suspension (conditioned on OLAP evaluation and compliance) — misconduct proven; mitigated by lengthy clean career; requirement to take MPRE rejected |
Key Cases Cited
- Disciplinary Counsel v. Gardner, 99 Ohio St.3d 416 (2003) (adopted objective standard for evaluating lawyer statements about judges; six-month suspension for judicial-impropriety accusations)
- Disciplinary Counsel v. Shimko, 134 Ohio St.3d 544 (2012) (one-year suspension fully stayed for accusations against a trial judge)
- Disciplinary Counsel v. Miller, 149 Ohio St.3d 731 (2017) (public reprimand / fully stayed suspensions in context of isolated misconduct in otherwise unblemished careers)
- Disciplinary Counsel v. Gaul, 127 Ohio St.3d 16 (2010) (standard of review for board evidentiary rulings — abuse of discretion)
- Cincinnati Bar Assn. v. Hauck, 148 Ohio St.3d 203 (2016) (attorney discipline proceeding cannot be used to relitigate merits of underlying appellate decisions)
- Disciplinary Counsel v. West, 85 Ohio St.3d 5 (1999) (unfounded attacks on judiciary warrant actual suspension)
- Columbus Bar Assn. v. Hartwell, 35 Ohio St.3d 258 (1988) (judicial-impropriety accusations support suspension)