Mahoning County Bar Ass'n v. Sakmar
127 Ohio St. 3d 244
| Ohio | 2010Background
- Respondent Michael A. Sakmar admitted to practice in 1993; complaint filed Oct. 12, 2009 for four counts of misconduct; he did not answer or appear in the action; default granted Feb. 2010; master commissioner and board found misconduct; admitted violations of profess. conduct rules 1.3, 3.5(a)(6), 8.4(d), 8.4(h) and Gov.Bar R. V(4)(G); repeated tardiness/failure to appear at municipal court hearings 2006–2008; contempt findings and capias for arrest; failure to cooperate in disciplinary investigation evidenced by lack of response to letters in 2009–2010; board recommended two-year suspension with one year stayed and related probation and law-office-management CLE; court adopts board’s sanctions
- Two-year suspension, with one year stayed, two years of monitored probation on reinstatement, and eight hours of law-office-management CLE, plus costs
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether misconduct proven by the record supports discipline | Relator asserts repeated tardiness/failure to appear plus noncooperation justify discipline | Sakmar argues lesser sanctions or no discipline warranted given mitigation | Yes, misconduct proven; warrants suspension and conditions |
| Appropriate sanction for respondent’s misconduct | Board’s severe sanction aligns with precedent for neglect and noncooperation | Discipline should be less harsh due to mitigating factors | Two-year suspension with one year stayed, plus probation and CLE |
| Impact of failure to cooperate in disciplinary process | Noncooperation justifies harsher discipline and monitoring | Lack of cooperation alone not determinative | Aggravating factor supports substantial sanction |
| Consideration of aggravating vs. mitigating factors | Pattern of misconduct and noncooperation outweigh mitigators | Mitigating factors include lack of prior discipline and cooperation in process | Aggravating factors prevail; sanction affirmed |
Key Cases Cited
- Gottehrer, 124 Ohio St.3d 519 (2010-Ohio-929) (neglect of client matter and failure to communicate warrant indefinite suspension but may depend on harm to client)
- Rohrer, 124 Ohio St.3d 65 (2009-Ohio-5930) (single misconduct with cooperation; degree of sanction intermediate)
- Nicks, 124 Ohio St.3d 460 (2010-Ohio-600) (two-year suspension with some stayed; multiple offenses with cooperation and mitigation)
- Buttacavoli, 96 Ohio St.3d 424 (2002-Ohio-4743) (standard for aggravation/mitigation in sanction decisions)
- Broeren, 115 Ohio St.3d 473 (2007-Ohio-5251) (consideration of aggravating/mitigating factors in discipline)