Summary
The Supreme Court of Ohio disciplined attorney Thomas Alan Yoder for professional misconduct arising from his conduct in a child-custody matter, a land-contract matter, and the related disciplinary proceeding. The court found violations involving false and derogatory statements, frivolous assertions, undignified conduct toward a tribunal, and communications intended to embarrass, harass, or burden others. Yoder was suspended from practicing law for two years, with the final six months conditionally stayed and reinstatement conditioned on an Ohio Lawyers Assistance Program evaluation and compliance with its recommendations.
Topics
Practice areas
Questions Presented
- Whether the Board of Professional Conduct's findings that Yoder violated multiple Ohio Rules of Professional Conduct were supported by the record and clear and convincing evidence.
- Whether the board's recommended sanction of a two-year suspension with one year conditionally stayed was appropriate.
- Whether Yoder's continued false and inflammatory accusations warranted a two-year suspension with only the final six months conditionally stayed and an OLAP-evaluation condition for reinstatement.
Holdings
- The board's findings of fact and misconduct were supported by clear and convincing evidence, and Yoder's objections were overruled.
- Yoder violated Prof.Cond.R. 1.2(e), 3.1, 3.3(a)(1), 3.5(a)(6), 4.1(a), 4.4(a), 8.4(c), and 8.4(d).
- Yoder was suspended from the practice of law for two years, with the final six months conditionally stayed on the condition that he engage in no further misconduct; reinstatement also requires an OLAP evaluation and compliance with resulting recommendations.
Key quotations
“We therefore overrule Yoder’s objections and suspend him from the practice of law for two years with six months conditionally stayed.” (¶ 4)
“On the contrary, our independent review of the record confirms that the findings of fact and misconduct set forth above are supported by clear and convincing evidence.” (¶ 39)
“If Yoder violates the condition of the stay, the stay will be lifted and he will serve the entire two-year suspension.” (¶ 42)
Factual background
Yoder represented clients in a child-custody matter and a land-contract dispute and made repeated unsupported, false, threatening, and derogatory statements about a magistrate, opposing parties, opposing counsel, and a witness. He also reported a custody-case adversary to professional licensing boards for the alleged purpose of gaining an advantage in the custody litigation and sent threatening letters to prospective disciplinary witnesses. The disciplinary panel and board found multiple violations of the Ohio Rules of Professional Conduct, and the Supreme Court confirmed those findings.
Procedural history
The Toledo Bar Association filed a three-count amended disciplinary complaint against Yoder. After a hearing, a panel dismissed six alleged violations and found other violations, recommending a two-year suspension with one year conditionally stayed; the Board of Professional Conduct adopted the panel's findings and recommendation. The Supreme Court of Ohio overruled Yoder's objections, independently reviewed the record, adopted the findings, and imposed a two-year suspension with the final six months conditionally stayed.