Mahoning County Bar Association v. DiMartino
147 Ohio St. 3d 345
| Ohio | 2016Background
- Dennis A. DiMartino, admitted 1987, faced his fifth disciplinary proceeding for professional misconduct.
- In June 2014 client George Michael Joseph paid $1,800 for help recovering personal property; DiMartino did no work, ignored the client, and failed to refund the fee promptly.
- DiMartino placed Joseph’s fee in his general business account rather than an interest-bearing client trust account and delayed responding to the Bar Association’s grievance inquiries.
- He stipulated to violating rules requiring diligence, communication, safekeeping of client funds, and cooperation with disciplinary investigations; the board adopted those findings.
- The board found aggravators (prior discipline; initial failure to cooperate) and mitigators (no dishonest motive; restitution; ongoing treatment for mental disorder and supportive letters from judges/attorneys).
- The board recommended indefinite suspension with conditions; the Supreme Court adopted the recommendation, barring reinstatement for at least two years and imposing treatment and CLE conditions.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Did DiMartino violate professional conduct rules (diligence, communication, safekeeping, cooperation)? | Bar: DiMartino neglected the matter, failed to communicate/refund, misused funds, and did not initially cooperate. | DiMartino stipulated to most allegations and admitted the conduct; emphasized treatment and mitigation. | Court: Violations of Prof.Cond.R. 1.3, 1.4(a)(3),(4), 1.15(a), and Gov.Bar R. V(9)(G) were found. |
| Does prior discipline and concurrent misconduct warrant harsher sanction? | Bar: Prior sanctions and repeated misconduct justify significant suspension to protect public. | DiMartino pointed to mitigation and treatment, requesting less severe sanction or concurrent stay. | Court: Prior record and that some misconduct occurred while under investigation make the case extraordinary; aggravating factor supports indefinite suspension. |
| What sanction appropriately protects the public and allows rehabilitation? | Bar: Indefinite suspension with conditions tied to treatment and proof of rehabilitation. | DiMartino: Continued treatment and rehabilitation support potential for reinstatement; favored conditional suspension. | Court: Indefinite suspension imposed, with minimum two-year bar on reinstatement and conditions for any future reinstatement. |
| What reinstatement conditions are required? | Bar: Conditions should include continued treatment, compliance with prior conditions, OLAP contract, and CLE in law-office management/client trust accounts. | DiMartino: Agreed to treatment and conditions; provided evidence of progress. | Court: Reinstatement conditioned on compliance with prior case conditions, proof of continued treatment and OLAP compliance, and CLE in trust-account management. |
Key Cases Cited
- Mahoning Cty. Bar Assn. v. DiMartino, 71 Ohio St.3d 95 (1994) (prior discipline for failure to respond and remit funds)
- Mahoning Cty. Bar Assn. v. DiMartino, 114 Ohio St.3d 174 (2007) (stayed one-year suspension for neglect)
- Mahoning Cty. Bar Assn. v. DiMartino, 124 Ohio St.3d 360 (2010) (reinstated suspension and additional suspension for dishonesty)
- Mahoning Cty. Bar Assn. v. DiMartino, 145 Ohio St.3d 391 (2016) (imposition of indefinite suspension with conditions in immediately prior case)
- Disciplinary Counsel v. Parker, 116 Ohio St.3d 64 (2007) (sanctioning principle: protect public from further infractions)
- Cincinnati Bar Assn. v. Lawson, 119 Ohio St.3d 58 (2008) (indefinite suspension where misconduct tied to substance/mental illness and rehabilitation prospects)