Case Title: Disciplinary Counsel v. Mitchell

Citation: 2010-Ohio-135

Docket Number: 20091502

State: ohio

Court: Ohio Supreme Court

Date: 2010-01-26T00:00:00Z

Document:
[Until this opinion appears in the Ohio Official Reports advance sheets, it may be cited as 
Disciplinary Counsel v. Mitchell, Slip Opinion No. 2010-Ohio-135.] 
 
 
NOTICE 
This slip opinion is subject to formal revision before it is published in 
an advance sheet of the Ohio Official Reports.  Readers are requested 
to promptly notify the Reporter of Decisions, Supreme Court of Ohio, 
65 South Front Street, Columbus, Ohio 43215, of any typographical or 
other formal errors in the opinion, in order that corrections may be 
made before the opinion is published. 
 
SLIP OPINION NO. 2010-OHIO-135 
DISCIPLINARY COUNSEL v. MITCHELL. 
[Until this opinion appears in the Ohio Official Reports advance sheets, it 
may be cited as Disciplinary Counsel v. Mitchell,  
Slip Opinion No. 2010-Ohio-135.] 
Attorneys — Misconduct — Multiple violations of the Rules of Professional 
Conduct — Indefinite license suspension. 
(No. 2009-1502 ⎯ Submitted October 20, 2009 ⎯ Decided January 26, 2010.) 
ON CERTIFIED REPORT by the Board of Commissioners on Grievances and 
Discipline of the Supreme Court, No. 09-014. 
__________________ 
Per Curiam. 
{¶ 1} Respondent, Donald Cameron Mitchell II of Cincinnati, Ohio, 
Attorney Registration No. 0040985, was admitted to the practice of law in Ohio in 
1988.  The Board of Commissioners on Grievances and Discipline recommends 
that we indefinitely suspend respondent’s license to practice, based on findings 
that he intentionally attempted to deceive a juvenile court magistrate as to his 
identity and the status of his license to practice.  We agree that respondent’s 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO 
2 
 
misrepresentations violated the Rules of Professional Conduct and that an 
indefinite suspension is appropriate. 
{¶ 2} Relator, Disciplinary Counsel, charged respondent with one count 
of professional misconduct, alleging multiple ethical violations.  Respondent was 
served with notice of the complaint but did not answer, and pursuant to Gov.Bar 
R. V(6)(F), relator moved for default.  A master commissioner appointed by the 
board granted the motion, making findings of fact, conclusions of law, and a 
recommendation of indefinite suspension.  The board adopted the master 
commissioner’s findings of misconduct and recommendation. 
Misconduct 
{¶ 3} Respondent abandoned the practice of law in 1992 to accept a job 
in the insurance industry.  He has not renewed his attorney registration since 1995 
and has been suspended for failing to register since December 2, 2005.  See In re 
Attorney Suspension of Mitchell, 107 Ohio St.3d 1431, 2005-Ohio-6408, 838 
N.E.2d 671.1  Despite his suspension, respondent attempted in early January 2008 
to represent a minor before the Greene County Juvenile Court and at that time 
provided false information about himself in response to a magistrate’s inquiries 
into his professional qualifications. 
{¶ 4} Respondent’s pretrial discussions with an assistant prosecutor 
before the juvenile court proceedings raised the prosecutor’s suspicions as to 
whether he was in fact an attorney.  The prosecutor alerted the magistrate, who 
checked online attorney-registration records.  Initially unable to find any listing 
for respondent, the magistrate asked him to provide his middle name.  Apparently 
                                                 
1.  The board noted that respondent’s license has also been under suspension since December 5, 
2003, for failure to comply with the continuing legal education requirements of Gov.Bar R. X.  
See In re Mitchell, 100 Ohio St.3d 1516, 2003-Ohio-6494, 800 N.E.2d 34.  A sanction imposed 
under that rule, however, is not to be considered in the imposition of a disciplinary sanction under 
Gov.Bar R. V(8).  Gov.Bar R. X(5)(C). 
January Term, 2010 
3 
 
to evade detection for practicing with a suspended license, respondent identified 
his middle name as Alan, when it was actually Cameron. 
{¶ 5} When the magistrate informed respondent that she still could find 
no licensed attorney in Ohio under the name he had identified, respondent falsely 
reported that he was licensed in Kentucky.  On the understanding that respondent 
was not licensed to practice in Ohio, the magistrate advised him that he could not 
practice in her courtroom.  The magistrate then excused respondent from the case 
and later reconvened the juvenile court proceedings. 
{¶ 6} Respondent admitted these facts in a deposition during relator’s 
investigation.  He also testified that the juvenile was the child of a woman with 
whom he worked and that neither she nor her child had known prior to their court 
appearance of respondent’s suspension from the Ohio bar.  Respondent 
characterized his conduct in the juvenile court case as “stupid,” said that he 
understood the gravity of his infraction, and assured that he had not attempted to 
provide legal representation to anyone else since the suspension of his license. 
{¶ 7} Based on these admissions, the board found clear and convincing 
evidence that respondent had violated Prof.Cond.R. 3.3(a)(l) (prohibiting a lawyer 
from knowingly making a false statement of fact or law to a tribunal), 5.5(b)(2) 
(prohibiting a lawyer who is not admitted to practice in this jurisdiction from 
holding himself out as admitted to practice), 8.4(c) (prohibiting a lawyer from 
engaging in conduct involving dishonesty, fraud, deceit, or misrepresentation), 
8.4(d) (prohibiting a lawyer from engaging in conduct prejudicial to the 
administration of justice), and 8.4(h) (prohibiting a lawyer from engaging in 
conduct adversely reflecting on the lawyer’s fitness to practice law).  The board 
also observed that respondent remained in violation of his duties under Gov.Bar 
R. VI(1)(A) (requiring a lawyer to comply with regulations for biennial 
registration and payment of fees) and (D) (requiring a lawyer to update his 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO 
4 
 
residence and office addresses with the Office of Attorney Registration).  We 
confirm the board’s findings of misconduct. 
Sanction 
{¶ 8} In recommending an indefinite suspension for respondent’s 
misconduct, the board factored into its decision the aggravating and mitigating 
factors of respondent’s case.  See BCGD Proc.Reg. 10(B).  In mitigation, the 
board cited respondent’s cooperation insofar as he had appeared for deposition 
and had made various admissions.  BCGD Proc.Reg. 10(B)(2)(d).  The board also 
weighed against respondent his suspension for failing to comply with attorney-
registration requirements.  BCGD Proc.Reg. 10(B)(1)(a). 
{¶ 9} In light of respondent’s admissions, the board’s findings of 
misconduct, and the fact that neither party has objected to the board’s report, we 
accept the recommendation for an indefinite suspension.  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. 
{¶ 10} Costs are taxed to respondent. 
Judgment accordingly. 
 
MOYER, 
C.J., 
and 
PFEIFER, 
LUNDBERG 
STRATTON, 
O’CONNOR, 
O’DONNELL, LANZINGER, and CUPP, JJ., concur. 
__________________ 
Jonathan E. Coughlan, Disciplinary Counsel, and Carol A. Costa, for 
relator. 
______________________