Toledo Bar Association v. DeMarco, 41 N.E.3d 1237

Respondent, Robert P. DeMarco, admitted to Ohio bar in 1969, charged in Feb. 2014 with professional misconduct for false statements to a court in Lucas County.
Hearing panel found violations of Prof.Cond.R. 3.3(a)(1), 3.3(a)(3), and 8.4(c); Board of Commissioners on Grievances and Discipline adopted, increasing proposed sanction to one-year actual suspension.
DeMarco aided a computer expert’s search under a strict discovery protocol; the disc with results was not submitted for in-camera inspection as ordered by the court.
At a 2012 pretrial conference, DeMarco falsely claimed no relevant documents existed and that Harper had informed him of as much; he later admitted he had the disc.
Harper testified that DeMarco lied in court about the disc; during a November 2012 show-cause hearing DeMarco repeatedly denied receiving or reviewing the disc.
The panel found aggravating factor of dishonest motive; mitigating factors included lack of prior discipline, cooperation, and favorable character letters, but not timely good-faith rectification.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether DeMarco violated rules prohibiting false statements and evidence	DeMarco violated 3.3(a)(1), (a)(3), and 8.4(c).	Disputed severity; argues mitigating factors warrant leniency.	Yes; violations established.
Appropriate sanction for the misconduct	One-year suspension with six months stayed is adequate.	A fully stayed suspension is warranted due to mitigating factors.	One-year suspension with six months stayed.
Treatment of mitigating and aggravating factors	Dishonest motive merits suspension; mitigating factors should be weighed.	Remorse and other mitigating factors support more leniency.	Dishonest motive found; other mitigating factors considered but do not justify a fully stayed suspension.
Consistency with precedents for dishonesty sanctions	Principle that dishonesty to court warrants actual suspension is consistent with prior cases.	Some cases support stayed sanctions in limited circumstances.	Court aligns sanction with established precedents; no fully stayed sanction warranted.

Disciplinary Counsel v. Fowerbaugh, 74 Ohio St.3d 187 (1995) (dishonesty to court warrants suspension)
Disciplinary Counsel v. Cameron, 130 Ohio St.3d 299 (2011) (actual suspension for isolated dishonesty in lengthy career; may stay if warranted)
Toledo Bar Assn. v. Miller, 132 Ohio St.3d 63 (2012) (one-year suspension with six months stayed; lies to two courts factor)
Disciplinary Counsel v. Stafford, 131 Ohio St.3d 385 (2012) (one-year actual suspension for dishonesty plus multiple violations)
Cuyahoga Cty. Bar Assn. v. Wise, 108 Ohio St.3d 164 (2006) (deference to panel credibility when assessing motives)