Case Title: Stark Cty. Bar Assn. v. Zimmer

Citation: 2013-Ohio-1962

Docket Number: 2012-2057

State: ohio

Court: Ohio Supreme Court

Date: 2013-05-16T00:00:00Z

Document:
[Until this opinion appears in the Ohio Official Reports advance sheets, it may be cited as 
Stark Cty. Bar Assn. v. Zimmer, Slip Opinion No. 2013-Ohio-1962.] 
 
 
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. 2013-OHIO-1962 
STARK COUNTY BAR ASSOCIATION v. ZIMMER. 
[Until this opinion appears in the Ohio Official Reports advance sheets,  
it may be cited as Stark Cty. Bar Assn. v. Zimmer,  
Slip Opinion No. 2013-Ohio-1962.] 
Attorneys—Misconduct—Indefinite license suspension for multiple alcohol-
related traffic offenses, flight from the scene of an accident, and failure to 
cooperate in the disciplinary process. 
(No. 2012-2057—Submitted February 6, 2013—Decided May 16, 2013.) 
ON CERTIFIED REPORT by the Board of Commissioners on Grievances and 
Discipline of the Supreme Court, No. 12-042. 
____________________ 
 
Per Curiam. 
{¶ 1} Respondent, Dale Alan Zimmer, whose last known address is in 
Massillon, Ohio, Attorney Registration No. 0018382, was admitted to the practice 
of law in Ohio in 1978.  We suspended his license on November 2, 2011, for his 
failure to register for the 2011-2013 biennium, and that suspension remains in 
effect.  In re Attorney Registration Suspension of Zimmer, 130 Ohio St.3d 1420, 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO 
2 
 
2011-Ohio-5627, 956 N.E.2d 310.  On June 11, 2012, relator, Stark County Bar 
Association, filed a four-count complaint charging Zimmer with engaging in 
conduct that violated the Disciplinary Rules of the Code of Professional 
Responsibility and the Ohio Rules of Professional Conduct, including his 
knowing failure to respond to the resulting disciplinary investigation.1 
{¶ 2} The Board of Commissioners on Grievances and Discipline 
attempted certified-mail service at Zimmer’s place of residence and a second 
address on file with the Office of Attorney Services, but the mailings were 
returned with no forwarding address.  On July 6, 2012, the board served the clerk 
of this court in conformity with Gov.Bar R. V(11)(B). 
{¶ 3} Zimmer did not answer the complaint, and on August 10, 2012, 
relator moved for default judgment. 
{¶ 4} A master commissioner appointed by the board granted relator’s 
motion for default, made findings of fact and misconduct, and recommended that 
Zimmer be indefinitely suspended from the practice of law with his readmission 
conditioned upon proof of compliance with an established substance-abuse 
program.  The board adopted the master commissioner’s findings of fact and 
misconduct and his recommended sanction.  We adopt the board’s findings and 
indefinitely suspend Zimmer from the practice of law. 
Misconduct 
Count I 
{¶ 5} The allegations of misconduct arise in part from Zimmer’s 
multiple driving infractions, each of which shows his disregard for his obligations 
as both a citizen and a lawyer to respect and honor the law.  Most recently, on 
                                                          
 
1 Relator charged respondent with misconduct under applicable rules for acts occurring before and 
after February 1, 2007, the effective date of the Rules of Professional Conduct, which supersede 
the Disciplinary Rules of the Code of Professional Responsibility. To the extent that both the 
former and current rules are cited for the same acts, the allegations comprise a single continuing 
ethical violation.  Disciplinary Counsel v. Freeman, 119 Ohio St.3d 330, 2008-Ohio-3836, 894 
N.E.2d 31, ¶ 1, fn. 1. 
January Term, 2013 
3 
 
November 2, 2011, Zimmer crashed his car into a parked vehicle and a building, 
causing damage to both.  He then fled the scene without reporting the accident or 
leaving contact information.  He was arrested and charged with failing to stop 
after an accident upon property other than the street and with the illegal use of 
license plates.  He pled no contest and was found guilty of failure to stop. 
{¶ 6} The board found that Zimmer had violated Prof.Cond.R. 8.4(b) 
(prohibiting a lawyer from committing an illegal act that reflects adversely on the 
lawyer’s honesty or trustworthiness), 8.4(d) (prohibiting a lawyer from engaging 
in conduct that is prejudicial to the administration of justice), and 8.4(h) 
(prohibiting a lawyer from engaging in conduct that adversely reflects on the 
lawyer’s fitness to practice law).  We adopt the board’s findings of fact and 
misconduct. 
Count II 
{¶ 7} While Zimmer was in custody for the November 2, 2011 accident, 
law-enforcement authorities discovered an outstanding bench warrant for his 
arrest that stemmed from an incident that had occurred on September 8, 2008.  On 
that date, Zimmer was charged with driving without a license and failing to 
maintain the assured clear distance ahead.  He was convicted of driving without a 
license on October 7, 2008. Zimmer was ordered to appear in open court on 
December 9, 2008, and provide the court with proof of a valid driver’s license, 
but he failed to appear.  A bench warrant was issued. 
{¶ 8} The board found that Zimmer had violated Prof.Cond.R. 8.4(b), 
8.4(c) (prohibiting a lawyer from engaging in conduct involving dishonesty, 
fraud, deceit, or misrepresentation), 8.4(d), and 8.4(h).  We adopt these findings 
of fact and misconduct. 
Count III 
{¶ 9} Zimmer was arrested at 3:20 a.m. on April 22, 2006, for operating 
a motor vehicle while intoxicated and for failure to control.  A bench warrant was 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO 
4 
 
later issued for his failure to appear for a hearing.  Nearly six years later, on 
January 3, 2012, he pled guilty to the 2006 charge of operating a vehicle while 
intoxicated and was sentenced to home arrest.  On March 1, 2012, a bench 
warrant was issued for his arrest because of his failure to report to the home-arrest 
supervisor as ordered.  On July 2, the judge in his case received a letter from 
Zimmer claiming that he was in the psychiatric unit at Mercy Medical Center in 
Canton and that he had attended approximately 45 Alcoholics Anonymous 
meetings in an attempt at sobriety. 
{¶ 10} With respect to this count, the board found that Zimmer had 
violated DR 1-102(A)(1) (prohibiting a lawyer from violating a Disciplinary 
Rule), 1-102(A)(3) (prohibiting a lawyer from engaging in illegal conduct 
involving moral turpitude), 1-102(A)(4) (prohibiting a lawyer from engaging in 
conduct involving dishonesty, fraud, deceit, or misrepresentation), 1-102(A)(5) 
(prohibiting a lawyer from engaging in conduct that is prejudicial to the 
administration of justice), and 1-102(A)(6), and Prof.Cond.R. 8.4(c), 8.4(d), and 
8.4(h).  We adopt these findings of fact and misconduct. 
Count IV 
{¶ 11} On February 1, 2012, Zimmer was served with a subpoena issued 
by the board requiring him to appear for a deposition conducted by relator.  
Zimmer acknowledged receipt of the subpoena, but failed to appear for the 
deposition. 
{¶ 12} The board found that the evidence clearly and convincingly 
demonstrated that Zimmer violated Prof.Cond.R. 8.1(b) (prohibiting a lawyer 
from knowingly failing to respond to a demand for information by a disciplinary 
authority during an investigation) and Gov.Bar R. V(4)(G) (requiring a lawyer to 
cooperate in a disciplinary investigation).  We adopt these findings of fact and 
misconduct. 
 
January Term, 2013 
5 
 
Sanction 
{¶ 13} 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 BCGD Proc.Reg. 10(B).  Disciplinary Counsel v. Broeren, 115 Ohio 
St.3d 473, 2007-Ohio-5251, 875 N.E.2d 935, ¶ 21. 
{¶ 14} The board found as aggravating factors multiple offenses and 
relator’s failure to cooperate in the disciplinary process.  See BCGD Proc.Reg. 
10(B)(1)(d) and (e).  Other than his failure to register in 2011 and subsequent 
suspension, the board finds that Zimmer has no prior disciplinary record.  As for 
mitigation, the board notes that Zimmer’s underlying criminal conduct resulted in 
fines and other penalties.  See BCGD Proc.Reg. 10(B)(2)(f). 
{¶ 15} Relator and the board suggest that Zimmer’s “sporadic interaction” 
with the Ohio Lawyers Assistance Program (“OLAP”) may be relevant in 
mitigation.  But the record contains no documentation of a formal diagnosis or 
evidence that respondent was participating in an approved treatment program.  
Therefore, Zimmer’s contacts with OLAP cannot qualify as a mitigating factor.  
See BCGD Proc.Reg. 10(B)(2)(g). 
{¶ 16} Zimmer’s record of alcohol-related traffic offenses and his flight 
from the scene of his most recent vehicular incident suggest that he suffers from 
untreated alcohol or substance abuse that has interfered with his personal conduct 
for some time.  Although Zimmer has not been shown to have neglected or 
mishandled client matters entrusted to him, he has on multiple occasions, through 
his conduct in both the criminal and disciplinary proceedings against him, 
neglected his legal obligations to respect and honor the law.  We have in similar 
circumstances suspended attorneys indefinitely.  See Disciplinary Counsel v. 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO 
6 
 
Pincus, 74 Ohio St.3d 146, 656 N.E.2d 1280 (1995) (imposing an indefinite 
suspension for two incidents of drunk driving and failure to register).  See also 
Columbus Bar Assn. v. Larkin, 128 Ohio St.3d 368, 2011-Ohio-762, 944 N.E.2d 
669, a default proceeding involving an attorney who admitted to a long-standing 
problem with drugs and alcohol for which attempts at treatment had been 
unsuccessful.  We imposed an indefinite suspension and conditioned any future 
reinstatement on proof of the attorney’s successful completion of treatment for 
substance abuse and of her fitness to return to the competent, ethical, and 
professional practice of law. 
{¶ 17} Having considered Zimmer’s conduct, the applicable aggravating 
and mitigating factors, and the sanctions we have imposed for comparable 
misconduct, the master commissioner and board recommend that Zimmer be 
indefinitely suspended from the practice of law in Ohio.  Because the record 
strongly suggests that Zimmer suffers from substance abuse and/or mental 
disability, they also recommend that Zimmer’s readmission be conditioned upon 
proof of compliance with an established substance-abuse program.  We agree. 
{¶ 18} Zimmer is therefore indefinitely suspended from the practice of 
law in Ohio with reinstatement conditioned upon proof that he has complied with 
an established substance-abuse program and that he is capable of returning to the 
competent, ethical, and professional practice of law.  Costs are taxed to 
respondent. 
Judgment accordingly. 
O’CONNOR, C.J., and PFEIFER, O’DONNELL, LANZINGER, KENNEDY, 
FRENCH, and O’NEILL, JJ., concur. 
____________________ 
Day Ketterer Ltd. and Robert J. McBride; and Richard S. Milligan, for 
relator. 
________________________