Disciplinary Counsel v. Proctor
131 Ohio St. 3d 215
Ohio2012Background
- Respondent Philip Lucas Proctor, Ohio attorney, admitted 1989, Newark, Ohio.
- In 2009 disciplinary counsel alleged multiple rule violations based on allegations against opposing counsel and a trial judge.
- Parties stipulated to findings: undignified conduct, false statements about a judicial officer, and disrespect toward the courts; a six-month suspended sanction was agreed.
- Board adopted most stipulated findings; aggravating factors were found; recommended six-month actual suspension.
- Proctor objected to the board’s findings and sanction, urged consideration of motions to dismiss; Supreme Court overruled objections and adopted board’s recommendation.
- Judgment: six-month suspension from the practice of law; costs taxed to Proctor; dissent would have imposed a 12-month stayed suspension.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Proctor’s statements violated ethics rules | Proctor made recklessly false statements impugning a judge. | Proctor argued for reporting duties and due process; sought dismissal, but disputing sanctions. | Yes, violations established; six-month actual suspension appropriate. |
| Whether aggravating/mitigating factors justify actual suspension | Aggravating factors outweighed mitigating ones. | Mitigating factors present, arguing for stayed sanction. | Aggravating factors outweighed; six-month actual suspension affirmed. |
| Whether Gardner governs triggering actual suspension in similar misconduct | Gardner supports actual suspension for unfounded attacks on judiciary. | Disagreement on applying Gardner to this case. | Court relies on Gardner to impose actual suspension. |
Key Cases Cited
- Disciplinary Counsel v. Gardner, 99 Ohio St.3d 416 (Ohio 2003) (unfounded attacks on judiciary may require actual suspension)
- Disciplinary Counsel v. DiCato, 130 Ohio St.3d 394 (Ohio 2011) (mitigating factors can justify lesser sanction)
- Disciplinary Counsel v. Fowerbaugh, 74 Ohio St.3d 187 (Ohio 1995) (presumptive sanction for dishonesty; mitigated by circumstances)
- Akron Bar Assn. v. DiCato, 130 Ohio St.3d 394 (2011) (six-month stayed suspension with mitigating factors)
- Dayton Bar Assn. v. Kinney, 89 Ohio St.3d 77 (Ohio 2000) (consideration of mitigating factors in sanctions)