disciplinary handbook: volume v - Supreme Court - State of Ohio

Case Summaries- 38
Cameron, Medina Cty. Bar Assn. v.
130 Ohio St.3d 299, 2011-Ohio-5200. Decided 10/12/2011.
Respondent communicated with a party represented by counsel with the counsel‘s consent and made false
statements to a tribunal as an expert witness. In Count One, respondent was sued by his expert witness for
failing to pay his fee. After he was served with a motion for default judgment on the case, respondent
contact the expert witness, who was represented by counsel, in an attempt to settle the case directly. In
Count Two, respondent, in the same case as in Count One, represented to the court that a settlement had
been reached, even though it had not. Although there was conflicting testimony on this fact, the panel
believed the other witnesses more credible than respondent. As a result, this conduct was found to
have violated Prof.Cond.R. 3.3 (making a false statement of fact to a tribunal) and 4.2 (prohibiting
communication with a represented party). The Court agreed with these findings. In aggravation,
respondent had a dishonest or selfish motive, engaged in multiple offenses, and failed to acknowledge the
wrongful nature of his conduct. BCGD Proc.Reg. 10(B)(1)(b), (d), (g). The Court however did find that
he acknowledged the wrongful nature of his conduct. In mitigation, respondent lacks a prior disciplinary
record and provided evidence of good character. BCGD Proc.Reg. 10(B)(2)(a), (e). Relator requested a
one-year suspension, respondent requested that the charges be dropped, and the panel and board
recommended a six- month suspension. Citing Cuckler (2004), the Court sided with relator. Respondent
was suspended for one year, stayed on the condition of no further misconduct.
Rules Violated: Prof.Cond.R. 3.3, 4.2
Aggravation: (b), (d), (g)
Mitigation: (a), (e)
Prior Discipline: NO Procedure/ Process Issues: NO Criminal Conduct: NO
Public Official: NO Sanction: One-year suspension, stayed