Disciplinary Counsel v. Stafford
2012 Ohio 909
| Ohio | 2012Background
- Relator filed an amended three-count complaint against Joseph G. Stafford, Ohio attorney, admitted 1985 and managing partner of Stafford & Stafford Co., L.P.A.
- A Board panel conducted a week-long hearing with Stafford and 14 witnesses; Count Two was sua sponte dismissed; six violations were found in the remaining counts; 14 additional alleged violations were dismissed.
- The panel recommended a 12-month suspension with conditions (stayed); the board adopted the panel’s findings and added justification for a stay.
- Count One (Tallisman matter) involved manipulated ex parte pleadings and alleged misrepresentations regarding a prenuptial agreement; the board found violations of 8.4(c) and 3.3(d).
- Count Three (Rymers matter) involved Stafford’s supervision of affidavits accusing Lucci of threats, false statements about a judge, and violations of 5.1(c)(1), 8.2(a), 8.4(c), and 8.4(d); the board so found.
- Disciplinary counsel’s objections to certain counts were overruled in part and sustained in part; the Supreme Court imposed an actual 12-month suspension and taxed costs to Stafford.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Did Stafford violate 8.4(c) and 3.3(d) in Tallisman? | Stafford added prenuptial issues via amended pleadings, misleading the court. | Stafford relied on ex parte procedures customary in that court and treated amendments as legitimate. | Yes; Stafford violated 8.4(c) and 3.3(d). |
| Was there prejudicial conduct to the administration of justice under 8.4(d) in Count One? | Stafford’s ex parte tactics caused waste and prejudice. | No actual legal prejudice proven; the conduct did not prejudice the legal process. | No; 8.4(d) not established. |
| Did Stafford’s Rymers conduct violate 5.1(c)(1), 8.2(a), 8.4(c), and 8.4(d)? | Stafford supervised and ratified misrepresentations and false statements | Stafford did not knowingly engage in misconduct; any statements were not knowingly false | Yes for those four violations. |
| Should the sanction be an actual suspension or a stayed suspension? | Actual suspension warranted given multiple violations and dishonest conduct. | Stayed suspension appropriate under similar cases and unique circumstances. | Actual 12-month suspension (costs taxed). |
Key Cases Cited
- Cross v. Ledford, 161 Ohio St. 469 (Ohio 1954) (clear-and-convincing standard and balance of factors in discipline)
- Gardner v. Disciplinary Counsel, 99 Ohio St.3d 416 (Ohio 2003) (objective knowledge standard for statements about a judge's integrity)
- Hardiman v. Cuyahoga Cty. Bar Assn., 100 Ohio St.3d 260 (Ohio 2003) (conduct prejudicial to the administration of justice from dishonesty)
- Reisenfeld v. Cincinnati Bar Assn., 84 Ohio St.3d 30 (Ohio 1998) (stayed suspension for isolated misconduct and cooperation)
- Finneran v. Columbus Bar Assn., 80 Ohio St.3d 428 (Ohio 1997) (discipline for pattern of misuse of procedures and dishonesty)
- Disciplinary Counsel v. Gallo, 131 Ohio St.3d 309 (Ohio 2012) (supervisory liability and disciplinary consequences in a firm)