Disciplinary Counsel v. Mitchell

124 Ohio St. 3d 266, 2010-Ohio-135 (2010) · Supreme Court of Ohio · January 26, 2010 · No. 2009-1502

Summary

The Supreme Court of Ohio considers professional-misconduct charges against Donald Cameron Mitchell II, who attempted to represent a minor while suspended and made false statements about his identity and licensure to a juvenile court magistrate. The court adopted findings that he violated multiple Ohio Rules of Professional Conduct and indefinitely suspended his license, with eligibility to seek reinstatement after two years.

Court
Supreme Court of Ohio
Writing for the Court
Per Curiam; Chief Justice Moyer; Justice Pfeifer; Justice Lundberg Stratton; Justice O'Connor; Justice O'Donnell; Justice Lanzinger; Justice Cupp
Jurisdiction
Ohio
Decision date
January 26, 2010
Docket number
2009-1502
Procedural posture
Attorney-discipline proceeding based on a certified report of the Board of Commissioners on Grievances and Discipline. The respondent failed to answer the disciplinary complaint, and the board granted the relator's motion for default and recommended an indefinite suspension.
Standard of review
The Supreme Court of Ohio independently reviewed the board's findings and recommendation and adopted them based on the respondent's admissions and the absence of objections.
Precedential value
Published, precedential opinion of the Supreme Court of Ohio
Parties
Disciplinary Counsel v. Donald Cameron Mitchell II
Disposition
other

Topics

administrative lawagency adjudicationremedies

Practice areas

legal ethicsattorney disciplineprofessional responsibility

Questions Presented

  1. Whether Mitchell violated the Ohio Rules of Professional Conduct and attorney-registration requirements by misrepresenting his identity, licensure, and authority to practice before a juvenile court.
  2. Whether an indefinite suspension from the practice of law was the appropriate sanction for the misconduct.

Holdings

  1. Mitchell violated Prof.Cond.R. 3.3(a)(1), 5.5(b)(2), 8.4(c), 8.4(d), and 8.4(h), as well as Gov.Bar R. VI(1)(A) and (D), by knowingly misrepresenting his identity and licensure and by engaging in related conduct while suspended from practice.
  2. An indefinite suspension was appropriate for Mitchell's misconduct, and he could not petition for reinstatement for two years from the date of the order.

Key quotations

We agree that respondent’s misrepresentations violated the Rules of Professional Conduct and that an indefinite suspension is appropriate. (¶ 1)
Respondent is therefore indefinitely suspended from the practice of law in Ohio. Pursuant to Gov.Bar R. V(10)(B), he may not petition for reinstatement to the Ohio bar for two years from the date of our order. (¶ 9)

Factual background

Mitchell abandoned private law practice in 1992, failed to renew his Ohio attorney registration after 1995, and had been suspended for failure to register since December 2, 2005. In January 2008, despite that suspension, he attempted to represent a minor in Greene County Juvenile Court and gave a false middle name to avoid detection. When questioned further, he falsely claimed to be licensed in Kentucky. Mitchell later admitted the conduct during the disciplinary investigation.

Procedural history

Disciplinary Counsel charged Mitchell with multiple violations of the Ohio Rules of Professional Conduct and related attorney-registration duties. After Mitchell failed to answer, a master commissioner granted default, found misconduct, and recommended an indefinite suspension. The Board adopted those findings and recommendation, and the Supreme Court of Ohio accepted them.

Court Document

Open PDF
Loading document…