Disciplinary Counsel v. Stafford, 2011 Ohio 1484

Disciplinary Counsel charged Vincent Stafford with multiple misconducts arising from four domestic relations cases and one legal malpractice case.
Board panel found violations including obstructing discovery and lack of candor, under DR 1-102(A)(5)-(6) and Prof.Cond.R. 3.4(a), 3.4(c), 8.4(d), 8.4(h).
Board recommended 18-month suspension with 12 months stayed; court ultimately stayed only six months of the suspension.
Stafford previously was publicly reprimanded in 2000 for misconduct in Gonzalez, creating an aggravating factor.
Disposition involved extensive 22-day hearing; the court reviewed the panel’s facts and conclusions and modified the sanction accordingly.
Costs taxed to Stafford.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether Stafford violated discovery rules in Count I.	Disciplinary Counsel argues conduct obstructed discovery and reflected a lack of candor.	Stafford contends the panel’s view of his practice style is irrelevant to the conduct.	Yes, violations proven; obstructive discovery and lack of candor established.
Whether Stafford’s candor violations in Count II were proven by clear and convincing evidence.	Disciplinary Counsel asserts misrepresentations and lack of candor occurred.	Stafford denies intentional misrepresentation, argues privilege disputes were arguable.	Yes, violations proven by clear and convincing evidence.
Appropriateness of the sanction given the misconduct.	Disciplinary Counsel supports 18-month suspension as appropriate under aggravating factors.	Stafford challenges severity, seeks lesser sanction.	18-month suspension with six months stayed is appropriate.
Whether prior discipline should aggravate the sanction.	Board found prior reprimand aggravating due to pattern of conduct.	Stafford argues prior discipline should not dictate result.	Yes, prior discipline properly aggravates the sanction.
Whether the court should monitor stayed suspension for further misconduct.	Counsel urges monitoring to ensure compliance during stayed period.		Court declined mandatory monitoring; stay remains but could lift if further misconduct occurs.

Disciplinary Counsel v. Claflin, 107 Ohio St.3d 31 (2005-Ohio-5827) (foundations for professional conduct standards and discipline)
Disciplinary Counsel v. Wallace, 83 Ohio St.3d 496 (1998) (discovery-related misconduct with sanctions)
Disciplinary Counsel v. Marsick, 81 Ohio St.3d 551 (1998) (dilatory discovery tactics and sanctions)
Columbus Bar Assn. v. Finneran, 80 Ohio St.3d 428 (1997) (dilatory discovery tactics and impact on justice)
Disciplinary Counsel v. Rohrer, 124 Ohio St.3d 65 (2009-Ohio-5930) (candor and disciplinary process respect)
Cincinnati Bar Assn. v. Nienaber, 80 Ohio St.3d 534 (1997) (integrity and candor in filings)
Gonzalez, 89 Ohio St.3d 470 (2000-Ohio-) (prior discipline as aggravating factor)