Case Title: Akron Bar Assn. v. DiCato

Citation: 2011-Ohio-5796

Docket Number: 2011-1023

State: ohio

Court: Ohio Supreme Court

Date: 2011-11-17T00:00:00Z

Document:
[Until this opinion appears in the Ohio Official Reports advance sheets, it may be cited as 
Akron Bar Assn. v. DiCato, Slip Opinion No. 2011-Ohio-5796.] 
 
 
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. 2011-OHIO-5796 
AKRON BAR ASSOCIATION v. DICATO. 
[Until this opinion appears in the Ohio Official Reports advance sheets, it 
may be cited as Akron Bar Assn. v. DiCato,  
Slip Opinion No. 2011-Ohio-5796.] 
Attorney misconduct, including engaging in undignified or discourteous conduct 
that is degrading to a tribunal and knowingly or recklessly making false 
statements concerning the integrity of a judicial officer—Six-month 
suspension stayed on condition. 
(No. 2011-1023—Submitted August 8, 2011—Decided November 17, 2011.) 
ON CERTIFIED REPORT by the Board of Commissioners on Grievances and 
Discipline of the Supreme Court, No. 10-093. 
__________________ 
Per Curiam. 
{¶ 1} Respondent, Edward Michael DiCato of Green, Ohio, Attorney 
Registration No. 0055350, was admitted to the practice of law in Ohio in 1991.  
On December 6, 2010, relator, Akron Bar Association, filed a complaint charging 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO 
2 
 
DiCato with a single count of misconduct arising from a telephone conversation 
with a judge’s bailiff in which DiCato made disparaging remarks about the judge. 
{¶ 2} Although DiCato provided written responses to relator’s letters of 
inquiry, signed for a certified letter containing relator’s notice of intent to file a 
complaint, and accepted service of the complaint, he failed to file an answer. 
{¶ 3} Relator moved for default pursuant to Gov.Bar R. V(6)(F).  A 
master commissioner appointed by the Board of Commissioners on Grievances 
and Discipline reviewed the evidence, made findings of misconduct and 
conclusions of law, and recommended that DiCato be suspended from the practice 
of law for six months, all stayed on the condition that he engage in no further 
misconduct.  The board adopted the master commissioner’s report in its entirety.  
We agree that DiCato engaged in undignified and discourteous conduct that was 
degrading to a tribunal by making a false statement, either intentionally or with 
reckless disregard for the truth, impugning the integrity of Judge Mary Margaret 
Rowlands.  His conduct adversely reflects on his fitness to practice law and 
warrants the sanction recommended by the board. 
Misconduct 
{¶ 4} The evidence demonstrates that during a telephone conversation 
with Judge Rowlands’s bailiff about fee applications that were awaiting the 
judge’s approval, DiCato called the judge a lying, cheating bitch.  As a result of 
DiCato’s comments to the bailiff, Judge Rowlands issued an order directing him 
to appear and show cause why he should not be held in contempt of court.  In an 
effort to resolve the conflict with the judge, DiCato sent her a letter offering an 
explanation for his conduct.  In his letter, DiCato stated, “We are even on the 
same team as democrats and I should be supporting you, which I would certainly 
like to do.” 
{¶ 5} DiCato appeared at the contempt hearing and pleaded guilty.  He 
explained that at the time he made the disparaging comment about the judge, he 
January Term, 2011 
3 
 
was upset about his pending fee applications and had been taking oxycodone for a 
medical condition.  He also apologized to the judge for his conduct.  He was 
found to be in direct criminal contempt for calling into question the dignity of the 
court as well as the character and reputation of a sitting judge.  He was sentenced 
to 48 hours in the Summit County Jail, suspended on the condition that he refrain 
from similar conduct in the future, and ordered to pay $500 to the Summit County 
Court within 120 days. 
{¶ 6} The master commissioner and board found that DiCato’s conduct 
violated Prof.Cond.R. 3.5(a)(6) (prohibiting a lawyer from engaging in 
undignified or discourteous conduct that is degrading to a tribunal), 8.2(a) 
(prohibiting a lawyer from knowingly or recklessly making false statements 
concerning the integrity of a judicial officer), and 8.4(h) (prohibiting a lawyer 
from engaging in conduct that adversely reflects on the lawyer’s fitness to 
practice law), but found that the evidence did not support the alleged violation of 
Prof.Cond.R. 3.5(a)(1) (prohibiting a lawyer from seeking to influence a judicial 
officer, juror, prospective juror, or other official by means prohibited by law).  
We adopt these findings of fact and misconduct and dismiss the allegation that 
DiCato violated Prof.Cond.R. 3.5(a)(1). 
Sanction 
{¶ 7} When imposing sanctions for attorney misconduct, we consider 
relevant factors, including the ethical duties that the lawyer violated and the 
sanctions imposed in similar cases.  Stark Cty. Bar Assn. v. Buttacavoli, 96 Ohio 
St.3d 424, 2002-Ohio-4743, 775 N.E.2d 818, ¶ 16.  In making a final 
determination, we also weigh evidence of the aggravating and mitigating factors 
listed in Section 10(B) of the Rules and Regulations Governing Procedure on 
Complaints and Hearings Before the Board of Commissioners on Grievances and 
Discipline (“BCGD Proc.Reg.”).  Disciplinary Counsel v. Broeren, 115 Ohio 
St.3d 473, 2007-Ohio-5251, 875 N.E.2d 935, ¶ 21.   
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO 
4 
 
{¶ 8} The master commissioner and board found DiCato’s lack of a prior 
disciplinary record and his cooperation during the disciplinary investigation to be 
mitigating factors.  See BCGD Proc.Reg. 10(B)(2)(a) and (d).  We agree, but also 
find he failed to file an answer or otherwise appear in this disciplinary action and 
thereby ceased to cooperate in the disciplinary process.  See BCGD Proc.Reg. 
10(B)(1)(e).  We find that the sanctions imposed in the contempt proceeding—a 
48-hour stayed jail term and a $500 fine—are also mitigating. 
{¶ 9} The aggravating factor found by the master commissioner and 
board is that DiCato refused to acknowledge the wrongful nature of his conduct 
and instead asserted that his statements to the bailiff were an exercise of his right 
to freedom of expression and free speech.  See BCGD Proc.Reg. 10(B)(1)(g).  
Having reviewed the evidence, however, we find that the only reference that 
DiCato made to his right to freedom of expression and free speech was his 
statement, “I am somewhat surprised that my statements are not protected by the 
First Amendment, but that discussion is not within the scope of this document.”  
And although DiCato attempted to demonstrate that his conduct was in response 
to aggravating conduct by the judge and her bailiff, he did apologize for his 
actions and accept responsibility by pleading guilty to contempt.  He further 
stated, “In any event I was wrong in making those statements.  The statements 
were inappropriate.” Therefore, we conclude that DiCato has acknowledged the 
wrongful nature of his conduct. 
{¶ 10} Relator recommended that DiCato be suspended from the practice 
of law for two years, with reinstatement conditioned upon the completion of his 
Gov.Bar R. X continuing-education requirements and certification from an 
appropriate agency or individual that he is not alcohol or drug dependent. 
{¶ 11} The master commissioner and board cited several cases in which 
we have publicly reprimanded attorneys who have impugned the integrity of the 
judiciary, failed to maintain their composure and used profanity in court or during 
January Term, 2011 
5 
 
depositions, or diminished public confidence in the judiciary.  Finding that 
DiCato’s conduct did not occur in public and involved only a single outburst 
during a telephone conversation with the judge’s bailiff, the master commissioner 
and board recommend that we impose a six-month suspension from the practice 
of law, all stayed on the condition that he engage in no further misconduct. 
{¶ 12} In Disciplinary Counsel v. Grimes (1993), 66 Ohio St.3d 607, 614 
N.E.2d 740, we publicly reprimanded an attorney for making inappropriate and 
disrespectful statements about a judge to a newspaper reporter and making 
inappropriate statements to a judge during a hearing. 
{¶ 13} At the opposite end of the spectrum, we suspended an attorney for 
one year for breaching courtroom decorum by making several intemperate 
comments directed toward the judge and placing a disrespectful, discourteous, and 
profanity-laced statement on the record at the conclusion of a jury trial.  Bar Assn. 
of Greater Cleveland v. Milano (1984), 9 Ohio St.3d 86, 9 O.B.R. 315, 459 
N.E.2d 496. 
{¶ 14} DiCato’s conduct in this case falls somewhere between that of 
Grimes’s and Milano’s.  Although his statement was not publicized like that of 
Grimes, it directly challenged the honesty and integrity of a sitting judge.  While 
the parties in Grimes stipulated that Grimes’s statements were the “ ‘result of 
emotional stresses created by a set of unusual circumstances that are unlikely to 
recur,’ ” Grimes at 609, DiCato has provided no such proof.  Although DiCato 
alluded to the possibility that a chronic back condition, prescription pain 
medication, and financial difficulties had influenced his conduct, he did not offer 
sufficient proof of these factors to warrant any mitigating effect.  And in contrast 
to Milano’s intemperate comments throughout trial, respondent’s conduct 
involved a single outburst during a brief telephone conversation. 
{¶ 15} Having considered DiCato’s conduct, the applicable aggravating 
and mitigating factors, and the sanctions imposed for similar misconduct, we 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO 
6 
 
conclude that a six-month suspension stayed on the condition of no further 
misconduct is the appropriate sanction for DiCato’s ethical violations. 
{¶ 16} Accordingly, Edward Michael DiCato is suspended from the 
practice of law in Ohio for six months, but the suspension is stayed on the 
condition that he commit no further misconduct.  If DiCato fails to comply with 
the condition of the stay, the stay will be lifted and he will serve the full six-
month suspension.  Costs are taxed to DiCato. 
Judgment accordingly. 
O’CONNOR, C.J., and PFEIFER, LUNDBERG STRATTON, O’DONNELL, 
LANZINGER, CUPP, and MCGEE BROWN, JJ., concur. 
__________________ 
R. Scott Haley and Ann Marie O’Brien, for relator. 
______________________