Case Title: Warren Cty. Bar Assn. v. Vardiman

Citation: 2016-Ohio-352

Docket Number: 

State: ohio

Court: Ohio Supreme Court

Date: 2016-02-03T00:00:00Z

Document:
[Until this opinion appears in the Ohio Official Reports advance sheets, it may be cited as 
Warren Cty. Bar Assn. v. Vardiman, Slip Opinion No. 2016-Ohio-352.] 
 
 
 
 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. 2016-OHIO-352 
WARREN COUNTY BAR ASSOCIATION v. VARDIMAN. 
CINCINNATI BAR ASSOCIATION v. VARDIMAN. 
[Until this opinion appears in the Ohio Official Reports advance sheets, it 
may be cited as Warren Cty. Bar Assn. v. Vardiman, Slip Opinion No.  
2016-Ohio-352.] 
Attorney misconduct—Violations of the Rules of Professional Conduct, including 
knowingly making a false statement of fact or law to a tribunal, knowingly 
offering evidence that the lawyer knows to be false, and engaging in conduct 
that is prejudicial to the administration of justice—One-year suspension 
with six months stayed on conditions. 
(No. 2015-0589—Submitted June 10, 2015—Decided February 3, 2016.) 
ON CERTIFIED REPORT by the Board of Professional Conduct of the  
Supreme Court, No. 2014-027. 
_______________________ 
 
 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO 
 
2
Per Curiam. 
{¶ 1} Respondent, Edwin Lowe Vardiman Jr. of Cincinnati, Ohio, Attorney 
Registration No. 0070574, was admitted to the practice of law in Ohio in 1999.1  
On December 3, 2007, we suspended Vardiman for failing to register for the 
2007/2009 biennium.  In re Attorney Registration Suspension of Vardiman, 116 
Ohio St.3d 1420, 2007-Ohio-6463, 877 N.E.2d 305.  We reinstated his license to 
practice law on December 28, 2007.  In re Reinstatement of Vardiman, 2008-Ohio-
1397, 883 N.E.2d 464. 
{¶ 2} On April 7, 2014, a probable-cause panel of the Board of 
Commissioners on Grievances and Discipline2 certified to the board a complaint 
filed against Vardiman by relator Warren County Bar Association, alleging that 
Vardiman committed multiple ethical violations by improperly signing the name of 
the opposing party in a custody matter, who was not represented by counsel, to four 
separate documents and then filing those documents in the juvenile court. 
{¶ 3} On October 8, 2014, relator Cincinnati Bar Association filed a 
separate complaint in the existing case, alleging that Vardiman engaged in 
additional misconduct in the execution of a will and power of attorney that he 
prepared for a client by signing as a witness and then falsely signing the name of a 
second witness to both documents. 
{¶ 4} Before the hearing on these matters, Vardiman filed admissions of 
fact to both complaints and admitted that his conduct in each matter constituted one 
or more violations of the Ohio Rules of Professional Conduct.  A panel of the board 
conducted a hearing and issued a report finding that Vardiman committed all but 
one of the alleged violations.  But finding that his recently diagnosed and causally 
                                                 
1 Vardiman was also admitted to the Kentucky Bar by motion on June 3, 2005, but he has been 
suspended in that jurisdiction since January 31, 2008, for his failure to comply with continuing-
legal-education requirements. 
2 Effective January 1, 2015, the Board of Commissioners on Grievances and Discipline has been 
renamed the Board of Professional Conduct.  See Gov.Bar R. V(1)(A), 140 Ohio St.3d CII. 
January Term, 2016 
 
3
related attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder (“ADHD”), his cooperation in the 
disciplinary proceeding, and his positive character evidence qualified as mitigating 
factors, the panel recommended that Vardiman be suspended from the practice of 
law for one year with six months stayed on conditions. 
{¶ 5} The board adopted the panel’s findings of fact and misconduct and 
also found that Vardiman’s misconduct was sufficiently egregious to warrant 
finding a separate violation of Prof.Cond.R. 8.4(h).  No objections have been filed.  
We adopt the board’s report in its entirety and suspend Vardiman from the practice 
of law for one year with six months stayed on conditions. 
Misconduct 
Warren County Bar Association Complaint 
{¶ 6} Vardiman represented a father who sought to reduce his child-support 
obligation in a proceeding before the Warren County Court of Common Pleas, 
Juvenile Division.  Vardiman prepared the initial shared-parenting plan, and after 
obtaining the signature of the mother, who was not represented by counsel, he 
submitted the document to the court.  After the court’s compliance officer returned 
the shared-parenting plan for corrections, Vardiman prepared a revised shared-
parenting plan and sent it to the mother with other documents, including an agreed 
entry, an application for child-support services, and a child-support-computation 
worksheet.  He later submitted the documents to the court, but the court rejected 
them. 
{¶ 7} Vardiman submitted a second revised shared-parenting plan and 
related documents to the court on March 11, 2013.  At a May 2013 pretrial hearing, 
the magistrate asked the mother whether she had signed the shared-parenting plan, 
and she replied that she had not.  Vardiman then admitted that he had signed the 
mother’s name to the second revised shared-parenting plan and submitted it to the 
court.  When asked why he had done so, he replied, “[P]urely timing[,] Your 
Honor.” 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO 
 
4
{¶ 8} During his cross-examination at the disciplinary hearing, Vardiman 
admitted that he had also signed the mother’s name without authority on the agreed 
entry, the application for child-support services, and the child-support-computation 
worksheet that he had submitted to the court—though he did not disclose these 
fraudulent signatures in his written admissions of fact.  Vardiman also admitted that 
his client had informed him at least one day before the May 2013 pretrial hearing 
that the mother had discovered the forgeries—but he did not report his conduct to 
the court before the pretrial hearing.  When asked why he had forged the signatures, 
Vardiman testified that his client had become anxious “because it was taking a long 
time to get the documents prepared.” 
{¶ 9} The panel found that Vardiman violated Prof.Cond.R. 4.3 (prohibiting 
a lawyer from giving legal advice to an unrepresented person, other than the advice 
to secure counsel, if the lawyer knows or reasonably should know that the interests 
of the unrepresented person are in conflict with the interests of the client), 3.3(a)(1) 
(prohibiting a lawyer from knowingly making a false statement of fact or law to a 
tribunal), 3.3(a)(3) (prohibiting a lawyer from knowingly offering evidence that the 
lawyer knows to be false), 8.4(b) (prohibiting a lawyer from committing an illegal 
act that reflects adversely on the lawyer’s honesty or trustworthiness), 8.4(c) 
(prohibiting a lawyer from engaging in conduct involving dishonesty, fraud, deceit, 
or misrepresentation), and 8.4(d) (prohibiting a lawyer from engaging in conduct 
that is prejudicial to the administration of justice).  But the panel did not believe 
that an alleged violation of Prof.Cond.R. 8.4(h) (prohibiting a lawyer from 
engaging in conduct that adversely reflects on the lawyer’s fitness to practice law) 
had been proven by clear and convincing evidence. 
{¶ 10} The board adopted the panel’s findings of fact and misconduct but 
also found that Vardiman’s dishonesty and submission of documents containing 
forged signatures to a tribunal were sufficiently egregious to warrant a finding that 
he violated Prof.Cond.R. 8.4(h) as charged in the Warren County Bar Association’s 
January Term, 2016 
 
5
complaint.  We adopt the board’s findings of fact and misconduct with respect to 
this count. 
Cincinnati Bar Association Complaint 
{¶ 11} Vardiman admits that Harold Williams retained him to prepare a will 
and power of attorney, that Williams signed those documents on October 18, 2013, 
and that Vardiman signed his own name to both documents as a witness.  Vardiman 
also admits that he signed the name Sandra J. Sink as a second witness and that he 
had no authority to do so.  Further, Vardiman admits that his conduct violated the 
Ohio Rules of Professional Conduct and that it was harmful not only to his client 
but also to the public.  The panel and board found that Vardiman’s conduct in this 
matter violated Prof.Cond.R. 8.4(b) and 8.4(c).  We adopt the board’s findings of 
fact and misconduct with regard to this count. 
Sanction 
{¶ 12} When imposing sanctions for attorney misconduct, we consider 
relevant factors, including the ethical duties 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.  We also weigh evidence of the aggravating 
and mitigating factors listed in Gov.Bar R. V(13). 
{¶ 13} In mitigation, the board found that, with the exception of a 25-day 
attorney-registration suspension attributed to an oversight, Vardiman did not have 
a prior disciplinary record, that he made full and free disclosure to the board, and 
that he presented positive character evidence.  See Gov.Bar R. V(13)(C)(1), (4), 
and (5). 
{¶ 14} In April 2014, Vardiman participated in an Ohio Lawyers Assistance 
Program (“OLAP”) evaluation and entered into a three-year OLAP mental-health 
contract that required him to see a licensed mental-health professional.  At his 
deposition, Todd Walker, Psy.D., a clinical psychologist, testified that he evaluated 
Vardiman pursuant to the terms of his OLAP contract and diagnosed him with 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO 
 
6
adjustment disorder with anxiety and depression as well as, subsequently, ADHD.  
While he testified that Vardiman’s anxiety and depression had subsided, he 
described Vardiman’s ADHD as an “inborn neurological problem” that caused him 
to have trouble controlling behavior that had previously been masked by his high 
intellectual functioning.  Walker noted that Vardiman had a history of oversights, 
distractibility, and impulsivity in terms of trying to take shortcuts and speed things 
up and testified that his ADHD was the primary cause of these behaviors and his 
ethical misconduct.  He reported that Vardiman was a “very compliant” and “highly 
motivated” patient and opined that as long as he continues to get proper medical 
and mental-health treatment, Vardiman can practice law in a competent, ethical, 
and professional manner.  Based on Walker’s testimony, the board found that 
Vardiman’s ADHD qualified as an additional mitigating factor pursuant to Gov.Bar 
R. V(13)(C)(7).3 
{¶ 15} As evidence in aggravation, the board cited Vardiman’s failure to 
seek assistance for his mental-health conditions until after the first formal 
disciplinary complaint was served upon him and his subsequent failure to disclose 
to his treating psychologist the misconduct alleged in the second complaint.  See 
Gov.Bar R. V(13)(A) (“In determining the appropriate sanction, the Board shall 
consider all relevant factors * * *”). 
{¶ 16} Vardiman argued that in light of his causally related mental-health 
condition, a fully stayed one-year suspension is the appropriate sanction for his 
misconduct.  The Cincinnati Bar Association, in contrast, recommended that at a 
minimum, he serve an actual suspension of one year. 
                                                 
3 In order for a disorder to qualify as a mitigating factor pursuant to Gov.Bar R. V(13)(C)(7), there 
must be (a) a diagnosis by a qualified health-care professional, (b) a causal relationship between the 
disorder and the misconduct, (c) a sustained period of successful treatment, and (d) a prognosis from 
a qualified health-care professional that the attorney will be able to return to the competent, ethical, 
and professional practice of law. 
January Term, 2016 
 
7
{¶ 17} The Warren County Bar Association did not recommend a specific 
sanction but identified five cases in which we imposed sanctions ranging from a 
six-month actual suspension to an indefinite suspension for misconduct involving 
false or fraudulent signatures on legal documents.  See Disciplinary Counsel v. 
Bogdanski, 135 Ohio St.3d 235, 2013-Ohio-398, 985 N.E.2d 1251 (imposing an 
indefinite suspension on an attorney who abandoned two clients, forged a client’s 
signature on an affidavit, notarized that signature, submitted the forged document 
to the court, and failed to cooperate in the resulting disciplinary investigation); 
Cincinnati Bar Assn. v. Farrell, 119 Ohio St.3d 529, 2008-Ohio-4540, 895 N.E.2d 
800 (imposing a two-year suspension, with the second year stayed on conditions, 
on an attorney who forged his wife’s signature on a power of attorney, used the 
power of attorney to obtain a line of credit, and then engaged in additional 
fraudulent conduct in an effort to conceal his wrongdoing); Disciplinary Counsel 
v. Shaffer, 98 Ohio St.3d 342, 2003-Ohio-1008, 785 N.E.2d 429 (imposing a one-
year suspension, with six months stayed on conditions, on an attorney who advised 
his client to forge his incapacitated grandmother’s signature on a backdated power 
of attorney, notarized the forged signature, and instructed his secretary to sign the 
document as a witness); Disciplinary Counsel v. Herman, 99 Ohio St.3d 362, 2003-
Ohio-3932, 792 N.E.2d 1078 (imposing a one-year suspension, with six months 
stayed, on an attorney who entered a no-contest plea to a charge of attempted 
tampering with evidence for altering two qualified domestic-relations orders after 
the opposing party and his counsel had signed them); and Lake Cty. Bar Assn. v. 
Speros, 73 Ohio St.3d 101, 652 N.E.2d 681 (1995) (imposing a six-month 
suspension on an attorney who filed an affidavit in court bearing the forged 
signature of a notary and containing a false statement claiming that his failure to 
timely file an appellate brief was the result of a clerical error). 
{¶ 18} Having considered Vardiman’s misconduct, the applicable 
aggravating and mitigating factors, and the sanctions imposed in Bogdanski, 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO 
 
8
Farrell, Shaffer, Herman, and Speros, the board recommends that we suspend 
Vardiman for one year with six months stayed on the conditions that he comply 
with the terms of his OLAP contract, maintain appropriate medical and 
psychological treatment, submit quarterly reports documenting his compliance with 
the foregoing obligations to a monitoring attorney selected by relators, and engage 
in no further misconduct. 
{¶ 19} After a thorough review of the record and the cases cited by the 
board, we find that the facts of Shaffer, 98 Ohio St.3d 342, 2003-Ohio-1008, 785 
N.E.2d 429, are most analogous to the facts now before us.  Shaffer discovered that 
the power of attorney a client’s grandmother had executed in favor of his client 
prior to her incapacity expressly prohibited the client from transferring her real 
property.  Id. at ¶ 3, 5.  Rather than seek a legal declaration of incompetence and 
the appointment of a guardian, Shaffer (1) prepared a new power of attorney that 
authorized the transfer of real estate, (2) backdated it to before the time of the 
grandmother’s incapacity, (3) advised his client to forge his grandmother’s 
signature, (4) notarized that forgery, (5) instructed his secretary to sign the 
document as a witness, (6) helped his client close on the sale of the property, 
representing that the title was marketable, and (7) filed the deed and the fraudulent 
power of attorney in the county recorder’s office.  Id. at ¶ 5-6. 
{¶ 20} We found that Shaffer engaged in a multistep process to defraud the 
court system and the public, sidestepping safeguards intended to protect sellers and 
buyers of real estate, and that his conduct warranted an actual suspension from the 
practice of law.  Id. at ¶ 13-14.  And we determined that a one-year suspension, 
with the final six months stayed on conditions, was commensurate with his offense.  
Id. at ¶ 9. 
{¶ 21} While Vardiman’s misconduct consisted of filing one or more 
fraudulent documents in two different courts rather than a multistep scheme to 
defraud, we agree that it is comparable in nature and severity to Shaffer’s 
January Term, 2016 
 
9
misconduct.  And while Shaffer was ostensibly motivated by his desire to assist his 
client, who was caring for his incapacitated grandmother, Vardiman’s conduct was 
at least partially driven by his recently diagnosed ADHD, which his treating 
psychologist described as an “inborn neurological problem.”  Given Vardiman’s 
acceptance of responsibility for his actions; his active participation in OLAP and 
effective treatment of this disorder; and numerous letters attesting to his good 
character, reputation, and professional competence, we agree that a one-year 
suspension, with the final six months stayed on conditions, is the appropriate 
sanction for his misconduct.     
{¶ 22} Accordingly, Edwin Lowe Vardiman Jr. is suspended from the 
practice of law in Ohio for one year, with the final six months stayed on the 
conditions that he comply with the terms of his OLAP contract, maintain 
appropriate medical and psychological treatment, submit quarterly reports 
documenting his compliance with the foregoing obligations to a monitoring 
attorney selected by relators, and engage in no further misconduct.  If Vardiman 
fails to comply with these conditions, the stay will be lifted, and he will serve the 
full one-year suspension.  Costs are taxed to Vardiman. 
Judgment accordingly. 
PFEIFER, LANZINGER, KENNEDY, and FRENCH, JJ., concur. 
O’CONNOR, C.J., and O’DONNELL and O’NEILL, JJ., dissent and would not 
stay any portion of the suspension. 
_________________ 
Bruce A. McGary and John S. Mengle, Bar Counsel, for relator Warren 
County Bar Association. 
Rendigs, Fry, Kiely & Dennis, L.L.P., and Michael P. Foley; and Edwin W. 
Patterson III, General Counsel, for relator Cincinnati Bar Association. 
Cline, Mann & Co., L.P.A., William Mann, and Richard A. Cline, for 
respondent. 
‘SUPREME CouRT OF O10

0