Summary
The Supreme Court of Ohio indefinitely suspended Dennis Armand DiMartino from practicing law for misconduct in two client matters. The court found violations involving client neglect, inadequate communication, trust-account and settlement-fund handling, dishonesty, and failure to cooperate with disciplinary investigations, and ordered restitution and conditions for any future reinstatement.
Holdings
- DiMartino violated Prof.Cond.R. 1.3, 1.4(a)(1), (3), and (4), 1.5(b), 1.5(c), 1.15(a), 8.4(c), and former Gov.Bar R. V(4)(G), and the court accepted the Board's findings of misconduct.
- An indefinite suspension was warranted, together with restitution of $4,600 and conditions on any future reinstatement.
Questions Presented
- Whether DiMartino violated the Rules of Professional Conduct and former Gov.Bar R. V(4)(G) through neglect, inadequate client communication, failure to document a contingent-fee arrangement and settlement, mishandling client funds, dishonesty, and failure to cooperate with the disciplinary investigation.
- What sanction is appropriate given DiMartino's misconduct, prior discipline, aggravating factors, and absence of mitigating factors.
Disposition
other
Cases Cited (6)
- Mahoning Cty. Bar Assn. v. DiMartino, 71 Ohio St.3d 95, 642 N.E.2d 342 (1994)(followed)
- Mahoning Cty. Bar Assn. v. DiMartino, 114 Ohio St.3d 174, 2007-Ohio-3605, 870 N.E.2d 1166(followed)
- Mahoning Cty. Bar Assn. v. DiMartino, 124 Ohio St.3d 360, 2010-Ohio-247, 922 N.E.2d 220(followed)
- Trumbull Cty. Bar Assn. v. Braun, 133 Ohio St.3d 541, 2012-Ohio-5136, 979 N.E.2d 326(followed)
- Disciplinary Counsel v. Scacchetti, 131 Ohio St.3d 165, 2012-Ohio-223, 962 N.E.2d 786(followed)
- Disciplinary Counsel v. Mathewson, 113 Ohio St.3d 365, 2007-Ohio-2076, 865 N.E.2d 891(followed)
Cited In (0)
No citing cases on record yet.
Court Document
Open PDFLoading document…