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

Frost, Disciplinary Counsel v.122 Ohio St.3d 219, 2009-Ohio-2870. Decided 6/24/2009.Case Summaries- 93As to Count One, respondent filed in court false accusations of bias and corruption against judgesand a county prosecutor; as to Count II, respondent repeatedly leveled unfounded accusations of racialbias and other impropriety against a federal judge; and as to Count III respondent persisted in pursuing abaseless defamation suit against two lawyers who were opposing counsel in a sexual harassment suit. Asto Count I, the board found violations of DR 1-102(A)(4), (5), and (6), DR 7-102(A)(1), DR 7-106(C)(1), DR 8-102(B), and Gov.Bar R. IV(2). As to Count II, the board found violations of DR 1-102(A)(4), 1-102(A)(5), 1-102(A)(6), 7-102(A)(1), 7-106(C)(1), 8-102(B), and Gov.Bar IV(2). As toCount II, the board found violations of DR 1-102(A)(4), 1-102(A)(5), 1- 102(A)(6), 7-102(A)(1), 7-102(A)(2), 7-106(C)(1). The Supreme Court of Ohio agreed with the findings of violations. The boardand the court rejected respondent‘s arguments that her statements about the judges and the prosecutors areconstitutionally protected speech. The court stated that Gardner (2003) settled the question and that thecourt summarized Gardner in Shimko v. Lobe, 103 Ohio St. 3d 416, 2003-Ohio-4048 stating that ―thecourt adopted an objective standard to determine whether a lawyer‘s statement about a judicial officerwas made with knowledge or reckless disregard of its falsity, rather than the subjective ‗actual malicestandard applicable in defamation cases. In the instant case, the court noted that ―Gardner stands forthe proposition that when an attorney levels accusations of judicial impropriety that a reasonableattorney would consider to be untrue, disciplinary sanctions are permissible.‖ The court also noted itsdisbarment of Baumgartner (2003). The board recommended an indefinite suspension. The supremecourt agreed and so ordered an indefinite suspension and because of concerns that the misconduct may bea by-product of unaddressed mental health issues, imposed as a condition of reinstatement in additionto the requirements of Gov.Bar R. V(10)(B) through (E) that any petition for reinstatement byrespondent must also include proof that to a reasonable degree of medical certainty that she is mentallyfit to return to the competent, professional, and ethical practice of law.Rules Violated: DR 1- 102(A)(4), 1-102(A)(5), 1-102(A)(6), 7-102(A)(1), 7-102(A)(2), 7-106(C)(1),8-102(B)Aggravation: NONEMitigation: NONEPrior Discipline: NO Procedure/ Process Issues: YES Criminal Conduct: NOPublic Official: NO Sanction: Indefinite Suspension