Summary
The Supreme Court of Ohio held that Richard Ahlman Oviatt violated professional-conduct and bar-governance rules by making unfounded statements impugning appellate judges, publicly disclosing disciplinary-grievance materials, and failing to cooperate with a disciplinary investigation. The court imposed a fully stayed six-month suspension conditioned on an Ohio Lawyers Assistance Program evaluation, compliance with resulting treatment recommendations, and no further misconduct.
Topics
Practice areas
Questions Presented
- Whether Oviatt violated Prof.Cond.R. 8.2(a) by making statements about appellate judges with knowledge of, or reckless disregard for, their falsity.
- Whether Oviatt violated Gov.Bar R. V(8)(A)(1) by publicly filing materials from a disciplinary grievance before a probable-cause determination.
- Whether Oviatt violated Prof.Cond.R. 8.1(b) and Gov.Bar R. V(9)(G) by refusing to cooperate with disciplinary counsel's investigation.
- Whether the disciplinary panel abused its discretion in limiting additional evidence and cross-examination.
- What sanction was appropriate for the proven misconduct.
Holdings
- An attorney violates Prof.Cond.R. 8.2(a) by making accusations against judicial officers without a reasonable factual basis when a reasonable attorney would regard the accusations as false or unsupported. Oviatt's accusations of political corruption, bias, and improper influence were unsupported and violated the rule.
- An attorney violates Gov.Bar R. V(8)(A)(1) by publicly filing materials relating to a disciplinary grievance before the Board of Professional Conduct determines probable cause, absent an applicable exception.
- A lawyer may not defend professional misconduct by asserting that the client directed the lawyer to engage in the unethical conduct.
- Disciplinary counsel may investigate matters that come to the office's attention and is not limited to issues first raised in a written grievance.
- The disciplinary panel did not abuse its discretion by limiting additional evidence and cross-examination concerning the underlying appellate case, and Oviatt could not collaterally attack the correctness of that appellate decision in the disciplinary proceeding.
- A fully stayed six-month suspension, conditioned on an OLAP evaluation, compliance with treatment recommendations, and no further misconduct, was the appropriate sanction for Oviatt's misconduct; the MPRE condition was not warranted.
Key quotations
“lawyers may not engage in unethical conduct merely because their clients direct them to do so.” (¶ 20)
“the “Office of Disciplinary Counsel and a certified grievance committee shall review and may investigate any matter filed with it or that comes to its attention and may file a complaint pursuant to this rule in cases where it finds probable cause to believe that misconduct has occurred.”” (¶ 22)
“Richard Ahlman Oviatt is suspended from the practice of law for six months, with the entire suspension stayed” (¶ 37)
Factual background
Oviatt represented John Selwyn in efforts to revive and collect a dormant judgment against Jeff Grimes. After an appellate court reversed the revival of the judgment, Oviatt publicly accused the appellate judges of political corruption, bias, undue influence, and improper motives, and filed portions of a disciplinary grievance against those judges in a civil case. During the resulting disciplinary investigation, Oviatt refused to answer inquiries about malpractice insurance, was held in contempt, and was found to have violated rules requiring cooperation with disciplinary authorities.
Procedural history
Disciplinary counsel charged Oviatt with professional misconduct. After a hearing, a three-member panel dismissed one alleged violation, found the remaining misconduct proved, and recommended a one-year suspension with six months conditionally stayed. The Board of Professional Conduct adopted the findings and recommended sanction, with different conditions. The Supreme Court overruled Oviatt's objections to the misconduct findings, sustained his objections to certain aggravating factors and the sanction, and imposed a fully stayed six-month suspension with conditions.