Summary
The Supreme Court of Ohio held that Greene County Probate Judge Thomas Mark O’Diam violated Jud.Cond.R. 2.8(B) by treating an estate beneficiary discourteously and failing to require similar conduct from his daughter, an attorney subject to his direction and control. The court adopted a six-month suspension from the practice of law, stayed in its entirety subject to conditions including no further misconduct and completion of judicial education.
Topics
Practice areas
Questions Presented
- Whether the evidence supported findings that O'Diam engaged in a pattern of misconduct, acted with a dishonest or selfish motive, failed to accept full responsibility, and failed to make full and free disclosure during the disciplinary proceedings.
- Whether O'Diam's conduct violated Jud.Cond.R. 2.8(B).
- What sanction was appropriate for O'Diam's judicial misconduct.
Holdings
- O'Diam violated Jud.Cond.R. 2.8(B) by failing to act in a patient, dignified, and courteous manner while interrogating Buccalo at the status conference and while appearing before the county commissioners, and by failing to require his daughter, an attorney subject to his direction and control, to act with comparable patience, dignity, and courtesy.
- The court overruled O'Diam's objections to the findings that he engaged in a pattern of misconduct, acted with a selfish or dishonest motive, failed to accept full responsibility, and did not make full and free disclosure to the Board.
- A six-month suspension from the practice of law, stayed in its entirety on conditions, was the appropriate sanction.
Key quotations
“O’Diam failed to be patient, dignified, and courteous to litigants, jurors, witnesses, lawyers, and others with whom the judge deals in an official capacity and to require similar conduct of lawyers subject to the judge’s direction and control, in violation of Jud.Cond.R. 2.8(B).” (¶ 30)
“Accordingly, Thomas Mark O’Diam is suspended from the practice of law in Ohio for six months, with the suspension stayed in its entirety on the conditions that he commit no further misconduct and complete six hours of continuing judicial education focused on judicial demeanor, civility, and professionalism.” (¶ 63)
Factual background
Thomas Mark O'Diam was a Greene County Probate Court judge whose daughter practiced law in his former firm and represented an executor in a probate estate before him. Beneficiary Grant David Buccalo publicly questioned O'Diam's practice of permitting family members to practice in his court and stated that O'Diam should recuse himself from such cases. O'Diam then compelled Buccalo to attend a status conference, interrogated him under oath for nearly an hour in a disparaging manner, permitted and assisted his daughter in continuing the questioning, and appeared with her at a county commissioners' meeting the following week to accuse Buccalo of publicly disparaging and slandering them. The Supreme Court concluded that this conduct violated the judicial requirement of patience, dignity, and courtesy.
Procedural history
Disciplinary counsel filed a complaint alleging that Judge Thomas Mark O'Diam violated Jud.Cond.R. 2.8(B). The parties stipulated to the facts and misconduct and jointly requested a public reprimand. A three-member panel recommended a six-month suspension stayed in its entirety, while the Board of Professional Conduct recommended an actual six-month suspension, suspension from judicial office without pay, and judicial-education conditions. O'Diam objected to the aggravating and mitigating factors and the recommended sanction.