aggravating and mitigating factors in Ohio

2008Indeed, when misconduct permeates a law practice, “disbarment is often the only sanction available for preserving the public confidence in the judicial system.” Disciplinary Counsel v. Golden, 97 Ohio St.3d 230 , 2002-Ohio-5934 , 778 N.E.2d 564, ¶ 23 , citing Cleveland Bar Assn. v. Glatki (2000), 88 Ohio St.3d 381 , 726 N.E.2d 993 . {¶ 65} To determine the appropriate sanction, however, we factor into our decision the aggravating and mitigating factors of respondent’s case.

2008Indeed, when misconduct permeates a law practice, “disbarment is often the only sanction available for preserving the public confidence in the judicial system.” Disciplinary Counsel v. Golden, 97 Ohio St.3d 230 , 2002-Ohio-5934 , 778 N.E.2d 564, ¶ 23 , citing Cleveland Bar Assn. v. Glatki (2000), 88 Ohio St.3d 381 , 726 N.E.2d 993 . {¶ 65} To determine the appropriate sanction, however, we factor into our decision the aggravating and mitigating factors of respondent’s case.

2011See, e.g., Disciplinary Counsel v. Hoff, 124 Ohio St.3d 269 , 2010-Ohio-136 , 921 N.E.2d 636, ¶ 10 ; Cleveland Bar Assn. v. Davis, 121 Ohio St.3d 337 , 2009-Ohio-764 , 904 N.E.2d 517, ¶ 17 ; Disciplinary Counsel v. Mathewson, 113 Ohio St.3d 365 , 2007-Ohio-2076 , 865 N.E.2d 891, ¶ 19 . {¶ 17} Having reviewed the record, weighed the aggravating and mitigating factors, and considered the sanctions imposed for comparable conduct, we adopt the board’s recommended sanction. {¶ 18} Accordingly, Harry Wittbrod is indefinitely suspended from the practice of law in the state of Ohio, with credit for ti

2011See, e.g., Disciplinary Counsel v. Hoff, 124 Ohio St.3d 269 , 2010-Ohio-136 , 921 N.E.2d 636, ¶ 10 ; Cleveland Bar Assn. v. Davis, 121 Ohio St.3d 337 , 2009-Ohio-764 , 904 N.E.2d 517, ¶ 17 ; Disciplinary Counsel v. Mathewson, 113 Ohio St.3d 365 , 2007-Ohio-2076 , 865 N.E.2d 891, ¶ 19 . {¶ 17} Having reviewed the record, weighed the aggravating and mitigating factors, and considered the sanctions imposed for comparable conduct, we adopt the board’s recommended sanction. {¶ 18} Accordingly, Harry Wittbrod is indefinitely suspended from the practice of law in the state of Ohio, with credit for ti

2026V(13), and the sanctions imposed in similar cases,” Disciplinary Counsel v. Bereday, 2019-Ohio-1895, ¶ 11 , “‘to ensure a fair and equitable disciplinary system,’” Fusco at ¶ 14 , quoting Nowicki at ¶ 35 (Kennedy, C.J., concurring in part and dissenting in part). {¶ 61} Aggravating factors weigh in favor of the board’s “recommending a more severe sanction.” Gov.Bar R.

2025V(13), and the sanctions imposed in similar cases,” Disciplinary Counsel v. Bereday, 2019-Ohio-1895, ¶ 11 , “to ensure a fair and equitable disciplinary system,” Nowicki at ¶ 35 (Kennedy, C.J., concurring in part and dissenting in part).

2026And we acknowledged that “[i]n between those two extremes, we typically impose term suspensions with all or part of the suspension stayed, depending on the severity of the misconduct and the applicable aggravating and mitigating factors.” Id. at ¶ 19, citing Disciplinary Counsel v. Bunstine, 2013-Ohio-3681, ¶ 32 . {¶ 28} In this case, the parties relied only on Paris, Hubbell, and Burkholder to support their proposed sanction of a conditionally stayed six-month suspension.

2016Disciplinary Counsel v. Bunstine, 136 Ohio St.3d 276 , 2013-Ohio-3681 , 995 N.E.2d 184, ¶ 32 .

2021Bar Assn. v. Rucker, 134 Ohio St.3d 282 , 2012-Ohio-5642 , 981 N.E.2d 866 (attorney failed to act with reasonable diligence, improperly charged a nonrefundable fee, and failed to deposit unearned client funds into a client trust account). {¶ 12} Having thoroughly reviewed the board’s findings of fact and conclusions of law, the applicable aggravating and mitigating factors, and the sanctions we have imposed for comparable misconduct, we agree that a public reprimand is the appropriate sanction in this case.

2021Bar Assn. v. Rucker, 134 Ohio St.3d 282 , 2012-Ohio-5642 , 981 N.E.2d 866 (attorney failed to act with reasonable diligence, improperly charged a nonrefundable fee, and failed to deposit unearned client funds into a client trust account). {¶ 12} Having thoroughly reviewed the board’s findings of fact and conclusions of law, the applicable aggravating and mitigating factors, and the sanctions we have imposed for comparable misconduct, we agree that a public reprimand is the appropriate sanction in this case.

2018Disciplinary Counsel v. Sturgeon , 111 Ohio St.3d 285 , 2006-Ohio-5708 , 855 N.E.2d 1221 . *179 In between those two extremes, we typically impose term suspensions with all or part of the suspension stayed, depending on the severity of the misconduct and the applicable aggravating and mitigating factors. *327 Cleveland Metro.

2016Disciplinary Counsel v. Sturgeon, 111 Ohio St.3d 285 , 2006-Ohio-5708 , 855 N.E.2d 1221 . {¶ 19} In between those two extremes, we typically impose term suspensions with all or part of the suspension stayed, depending on the severity of the misconduct and the applicable aggravating and mitigating factors.

2011See, e.g., Disciplinary Counsel v. Hoff, 124 Ohio St.3d 269 , 2010-Ohio-136 , 921 N.E.2d 636, ¶ 10 ; Cleveland Bar Assn. v. Davis, 121 Ohio St.3d 337 , 2009-Ohio-764 , 904 N.E.2d 517, ¶ 17 ; Disciplinary Counsel v. Mathewson, 113 Ohio St.3d 365 , 2007-Ohio-2076 , 865 N.E.2d 891, ¶ 19 . {¶ 17} Having reviewed the record, weighed the aggravating and mitigating factors, and considered the sanctions imposed for comparable conduct, we adopt the board’s recommended sanction. {¶ 18} Accordingly, Harry Wittbrod is indefinitely suspended from the practice of law in the state of Ohio, with credit for ti

2011See, e.g., Disciplinary Counsel v. Hoff, 124 Ohio St.3d 269 , 2010-Ohio-136 , 921 N.E.2d 636, ¶ 10 ; Cleveland Bar Assn. v. Davis, 121 Ohio St.3d 337 , 2009-Ohio-764 , 904 N.E.2d 517, ¶ 17 ; Disciplinary Counsel v. Mathewson, 113 Ohio St.3d 365 , 2007-Ohio-2076 , 865 N.E.2d 891, ¶ 19 . {¶ 17} Having reviewed the record, weighed the aggravating and mitigating factors, and considered the sanctions imposed for comparable conduct, we adopt the board’s recommended sanction. {¶ 18} Accordingly, Harry Wittbrod is indefinitely suspended from the practice of law in the state of Ohio, with credit for ti

2009Bar Assn. v. Buttacavoli, 96 Ohio St.3d 424 , 2002-Ohio-4743 , 775 N.E.2d 818 , ¶ 16. “[W]e also weigh evidence of the aggravating and mitigating factors listed in Section 10 of the Rules and Regulations Governing Procedure on Complaints and Hearings Before the Board of Commissioners on Grievances and Discipline (‘BCGD Proc.Reg.’).

2008Bar Assn. v. Buttacavoli, 96 Ohio St.3d 424 , 2002-Ohio-4743 , 775 N.E.2d 818 , ¶ 16. “[W]e also weigh evidence of the aggravating and mitigating factors listed in Section 10 of the Rules and Regulations Governing Procedure on Complaints and Hearings Before the Board of Commissioners on Grievances and Discipline (‘BCGD Proc.Reg.’).

2009Bar Assn. v. Buttacavoli, 96 Ohio St.3d 424 , 2002-Ohio-4743 , 775 N.E.2d 818 , ¶ 16. “[W]e also weigh evidence of the aggravating and mitigating factors listed in Section 10 of the Rules and Regulations Governing Procedure on Complaints and Hearings Before the Board of Commissioners on Grievances and Discipline (‘BCGD Proc.Reg.’).

2008Bar Assn. v. Buttacavoli, 96 Ohio St.3d 424 , 2002-Ohio-4743 , 775 N.E.2d 818 , ¶ 16. “[W]e also weigh evidence of the aggravating and mitigating factors listed in Section 10 of the Rules and Regulations Governing Procedure on Complaints and Hearings Before the Board of Commissioners on Grievances and Discipline (‘BCGD Proc.Reg.’).

2026A One-year Suspension Is the Appropriate Sanction to Impose for Cable’s Misconduct {¶ 75} After reviewing the cases the majority relies on, I find that Cable’s misconduct and the aggravating and mitigating factors involved are most aligned with Haas, 1998-Ohio-93.

2026A One-year Suspension Is the Appropriate Sanction to Impose for Cable’s Misconduct {¶ 75} After reviewing the cases the majority relies on, I find that Cable’s misconduct and the aggravating and mitigating factors involved are most aligned with Haas, 1998-Ohio-93.

2026V(13), and the sanctions imposed in similar cases.” Disciplinary Counsel v. Ranke, 2024-Ohio-5491, ¶ 37 .

2026“Whether a court of common pleas possesses subject-matter jurisdiction to entertain an untimely petition for postconviction relief is a question of law, subject to de novo review.” State v. Apanovitch, 2018-Ohio-4744, ¶ 24 . {¶132} Appellant did not advance a state or federal Eighth Amendment constitutional challenge to his sentence based on his mental illness in his direct appeal, but for his challenge to the weight given to the aggravating and mitigating factors resulting in his death sentence.

2026Because Celebrezze is the only case involving manipulation of the random assignment of cases that is cited by the majority, it is the most instructive in determining the appropriate sanction here. {¶ 61} Because Celebrezze is the most instructive case—whereas Hale, 2014-Ohio-5053 , and Marshall, 2019-Ohio-670 , are not wholly instructive and plainly demonstrate that Skelton deserves an actual suspension of more than six months—we should begin the sanction analysis by presuming that the sanction we imposed in Celebrezze—a two-year suspension with one year conditionally stayed—is warranted and r

2026Because Celebrezze is the only case involving manipulation of the random assignment of cases that is cited by the majority, it is the most instructive in determining the appropriate sanction here. {¶ 61} Because Celebrezze is the most instructive case—whereas Hale, 2014-Ohio-5053 , and Marshall, 2019-Ohio-670 , are not wholly instructive and plainly demonstrate that Skelton deserves an actual suspension of more than six months—we should begin the sanction analysis by presuming that the sanction we imposed in Celebrezze—a two-year suspension with one year conditionally stayed—is warranted and r

2025After weighing the aggravating and mitigating factors, the board based solely on the violation of another rule); In re Convisser, 2010-NMSC-037 , ¶ 32 (“piling on another rule violation that is only a more general means to condemn misconduct that specifically violated other rules would add little to the outcome of this proceeding”); Iowa Supreme Court Attorney Disciplinary Bd. v. Netti, 797 N.W.2d 591, 605 (Iowa 2011) (declining to find a violation of a more general prohibition after finding that attorney’s conduct violated a specific prohibition in the rules); In re Carpenter, 2015 ND 111, ¶

2025But based on the nature and scope of the misconduct and the relevant aggravating and mitigating factors, the facts and circumstances of this case are readily distinguishable from those of the cases advanced by Rossi. {¶ 60} For example, in Disciplinary Counsel v. Harmon, 2019-Ohio-4171 , four members of this court voted to impose a two-year conditionally stayed suspension on an attorney who had committed multiple and serious ethical violations while representing a personal friend and mentor who had been diagnosed with dementia.

2025Id.

2025“In exercising its discretion to impose either a prison term or community-control sanctions for an offense, the trial court must consider the overriding purposes of felony sentencing under R.C. 2929.11 and the aggravating and mitigating factors enumerated in R.C. 2929.12.” (Citation omitted.) Id. {¶23} The trial court stated that it considered the purposes and principles of sentencing, including punishing offenders and protecting the public from future crime, although it did not cite the specific statute number.1 We find nothing in the record to demonstrate it failed to consider the purposes s

2024V(13), and the sanctions imposed in similar cases.” Disciplinary Counsel v. Berry, 2021-Ohio-3864, ¶ 14 .

2024V(13), and the sanctions imposed in similar cases. 11 SUPREME COURT OF OHIO {¶ 43} In determining the appropriate sanction to recommend for Adams’s misconduct, the board acknowledged that “[d]isbarment is the presumptive sanction for misappropriation,” Disciplinary Counsel v. Hunter, 106 Ohio St.3d 418 , 2005-Ohio-5411 , 835 N.E.2d 707 , ¶ 37, citing Cleveland Bar Assn. v. Dixon, 95 Ohio St.3d 490 , 2002-Ohio-2490 , 769 N.E.2d 816 , ¶ 15.

2024V(13), and the sanctions imposed in similar cases. {¶ 43} In determining the appropriate sanction to recommend for Adams’s misconduct, the board acknowledged that “[d]isbarment is the presumptive sanction for misappropriation,” Disciplinary Counsel v. Hunter, 106 Ohio St.3d 418, 2005-Ohio-5411, 835 N.E.2d 707, ¶ 37, citing Cleveland Bar Assn. v. Dixon, 95 Ohio St.3d 490, 2002-Ohio-2490, 769 N.E.2d 816, ¶ 15.

2024In support of that recommended sanction, the board distinguished cases in which we permanently disbarred judges, explaining that “[c]ases that lead to disbarment typically arise from repeated, purposeful, preplanned felonious conduct” while Warner’s misconduct, “although reprehensible and abhorrent, stemmed from a single, unpremeditated act.” The board cited Disciplinary Counsel v. Terry, 147 Ohio St.3d 169, 2016-Ohio-563, 63 N.E.3d 88, Disciplinary Counsel v. McAuliffe, 121 Ohio St.3d 315, 2009-Ohio-1151, 903 N.E.2d 1209, and Disciplinary Counsel v. Gallagher, 82 Ohio St.3d 51, 693 N.E.2d 107

2024In support of that recommended sanction, the board distinguished cases in which we permanently disbarred judges, explaining that “[c]ases that lead to disbarment typically arise from repeated, purposeful, preplanned felonious conduct” while Warner’s misconduct, “although reprehensible and abhorrent, stemmed from a single, unpremeditated act.” The board cited Disciplinary Counsel v. Terry, 147 Ohio St.3d 169, 2016-Ohio-563, 63 N.E.3d 88, Disciplinary Counsel v. McAuliffe, 121 Ohio St.3d 315, 2009-Ohio-1151, 903 N.E.2d 1209, and Disciplinary Counsel v. Gallagher, 82 Ohio St.3d 51, 693 N.E.2d 107

2024V(13), and the sanctions imposed in similar cases. 11 SUPREME COURT OF OHIO {¶ 43} In determining the appropriate sanction to recommend for Adams’s misconduct, the board acknowledged that “[d]isbarment is the presumptive sanction for misappropriation,” Disciplinary Counsel v. Hunter, 106 Ohio St.3d 418 , 2005-Ohio-5411 , 835 N.E.2d 707 , ¶ 37, citing Cleveland Bar Assn. v. Dixon, 95 Ohio St.3d 490 , 2002-Ohio-2490 , 769 N.E.2d 816 , ¶ 15.

2024V(13), and the sanctions imposed in similar cases. {¶ 43} In determining the appropriate sanction to recommend for Adams’s misconduct, the board acknowledged that “[d]isbarment is the presumptive sanction for misappropriation,” Disciplinary Counsel v. Hunter, 106 Ohio St.3d 418, 2005-Ohio-5411, 835 N.E.2d 707, ¶ 37, citing Cleveland Bar Assn. v. Dixon, 95 Ohio St.3d 490, 2002-Ohio-2490, 769 N.E.2d 816, ¶ 15.

2024V(13), and the sanctions imposed in similar cases. 4 January Term, 2024 {¶ 15} We have held that when an attorney engages in a course of conduct involving dishonesty, fraud, deceit, or misrepresentation, “the attorney will be actually suspended from the practice of law for an appropriate period of time.” Disciplinary Counsel v. Fowerbaugh, 1995-Ohio-261, syllabus.

2024V(13), and the sanctions imposed in similar cases. {¶ 15} We have held that when an attorney engages in a course of conduct involving dishonesty, fraud, deceit, or misrepresentation, “the attorney will be actually suspended from the practice of law for an appropriate period of time.” Disciplinary Counsel v. Fowerbaugh, 1995-Ohio-261 , syllabus.

2024In support of that recommended sanction, the board distinguished cases in which we permanently disbarred judges, explaining that “[c]ases that lead to disbarment typically arise from repeated, purposeful, preplanned felonious conduct” while Warner’s misconduct, “although reprehensible and abhorrent, stemmed from a single, unpremeditated act.” The board cited Disciplinary Counsel v. Terry, 147 Ohio St.3d 169, 2016-Ohio-563, 63 N.E.3d 88, Disciplinary Counsel v. McAuliffe, 121 Ohio St.3d 315, 2009-Ohio-1151, 903 N.E.2d 1209, and Disciplinary Counsel v. Gallagher, 82 Ohio St.3d 51, 693 N.E.2d 107

2024In support of that recommended sanction, the board distinguished cases in which we permanently disbarred judges, explaining that “[c]ases that lead to disbarment typically arise from repeated, purposeful, preplanned felonious conduct” while Warner’s misconduct, “although reprehensible and abhorrent, stemmed from a single, unpremeditated act.” The board cited Disciplinary Counsel v. Terry, 147 Ohio St.3d 169, 2016-Ohio-563, 63 N.E.3d 88, Disciplinary Counsel v. McAuliffe, 121 Ohio St.3d 315, 2009-Ohio-1151, 903 N.E.2d 1209, and Disciplinary Counsel v. Gallagher, 82 Ohio St.3d 51, 693 N.E.2d 107