Case Title: Disciplinary Counsel v. Mills

Citation: 2001-Ohio-1315

Docket Number: 20010413

State: ohio

Court: Ohio Supreme Court

Date: 2001-09-26T00:00:00Z

Document:
[Cite as Disciplinary Counsel v. Mills, 93 Ohio St.3d 407, 2001-Ohio-1315] 
 
 
OFFICE OF DISCIPLINARY COUNSEL v. MILLS. 
[Cite as Disciplinary Counsel v. Mills (2001), 93 Ohio St.3d 407.] 
Attorneys at law — Misconduct — Public reprimand — Engaging in undignified or 
discourteous conduct which is degrading to a tribunal. 
(No. 01-413 — Submitted July 17, 2001 — Decided September 26, 2001.) 
ON CERTIFIED REPORT by the Board of Commissioners on Grievances and Discipline 
of the Supreme Court, No. 00-35. 
__________________ 
 
Per Curiam.  The relator, Office of Disciplinary Counsel, filed a complaint 
on June 5, 2000, with the Board of Commissioners on Grievances and Discipline 
(“board”) alleging that respondent, Luther J. Mills of Westerville, Ohio, Attorney 
Registration No. 0041451, violated DR 1-102(A)(5) (a lawyer shall not engage in 
conduct that is prejudicial to the administration of justice), 1-102(A)(6) (a lawyer 
shall not engage in conduct that adversely reflects on a lawyer’s fitness to practice 
law), and 7-106(C)(6) (a lawyer shall not engage in undignified or discourteous 
conduct which is degrading to a tribunal).  The respondent filed an answer and denied 
violating any Disciplinary Rules. 
 
A hearing was conducted before a panel of the board on October 26, 2000.  
The panel concluded that respondent’s actions violated DR 7-106(C)(6).  However, 
the panel determined that there was insufficient evidence to prove that respondent 
violated 1-102(A)(5) or 1-102(A)(6).  The panel recommended that respondent 
receive a public reprimand. 
 
The panel’s recommendation was based on the following circumstances.  On 
September 1, 1999, respondent, on behalf of his client, attended a postdecree hearing 
to modify parental rights and responsibilities.  Susan Lantz represented the opposing 
party.  The case was originally set for February, but it had been continued several 
times. 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO 
2 
 
The hearing was scheduled before Magistrate Charles P. Jones.  Both Lantz 
and respondent met with Magistrate Jones in his office.  There were two issues raised 
in the meeting that apparently precipitated respondent’s actions that are the subject of 
this disciplinary action.  The first was a request by Lantz to have a guardian ad litem 
appointed.  The second was an order by Magistrate Jones that the deposition would 
take place on September 30, 1999, at the courthouse.  Magistrate Jones granted 
Lantz’s request to appoint a guardian ad litem; he further decided that the depositions 
would take place at the courthouse.  Accordingly, Magistrate Jones continued the 
case. 
 
Upon hearing these rulings, respondent became irate.  Unhappy with the 
resulting continuance and the location of the future depositions, respondent berated 
Magistrate Jones with numerous obscenities, including “this is bullshit” and “this is 
the second time you’ve done this crap to me.”  Respondent also berated Lantz, 
stating, “She’s done this five f-----g times” (referring to prior continuances in the 
case).  During this tirade, respondent raised his voice, clenched his fists, became 
redfaced, pounded on the table with his fists, and leaned toward Magistrate Jones in a 
threatening manner.  Magistrate Jones asked respondent to calm down and back off 
several times without any result.  Eventually, he requested that respondent leave his 
office, a request that respondent initially failed to follow. 
 
After respondent left the office, Magistrate Jones asked Lantz to prepare a 
continuance entry and coordinate a new date with respondent’s office.  Subsequently, 
respondent returned to Jones’s office and accused Jones and Lantz of ex parte 
communications. 
 
At the disciplinary hearing, Magistrate Jones testified that respondent took 
such an aggressive stance that he (Jones) believed that respondent was going to 
physically assault him.  Magistrate Jones testified that “I have had plenty [of] 
attorneys express dissatisfaction with my rulings, but it’s always done in a 
professional manner.  I never had anybody react this way to me.”  Several attorneys 
who witnessed the incident corroborated the loud and angry tone of respondent’s 
January Term, 2001 
3 
voice.  One witness indicated that she had never heard that tone used in the presence 
of a magistrate. 
 
Though admitting that he was ashamed of his actions, respondent testified 
that he was provoked into acting the way that he did.  Respondent testified that he 
believed that Lantz was merely trying to employ a delaying tactic by asking that a 
guardian ad litem be appointed.  Respondent also testified that he believed that 
Magistrate Jones’s response to Lantz’s request that a guardian ad litem be appointed 
indicated that the magistrate had undertaken an ex parte conversation with Lantz.  
This belief was based on the fact that, after Lantz had asked that a guardian ad litem 
be appointed, Magistrate Jones never inquired as to respondent’s opinion on making 
such an appointment, thereby implying in respondent’s mind that Lantz and 
Magistrate Jones had already agreed that a guardian was needed. 
 
The actions of Magistrate Jones and Lantz are not before this court.  Further, 
other than respondent’s bald assertions, there is no indication that Lantz or Jones 
acted in an inappropriate manner in this case.  However, we feel compelled to make 
clear that even if Magistrate Jones or Lantz had acted improperly, the appropriate 
response is not to retaliate with a temper tantrum.  As this court professed in State v. 
Wilson (1972), 30 Ohio St.2d 312, 314-315, 59 O.O.2d 379, 381, 285 N.E.2d 38, 40, 
“The integrity of the judicial process demands total deference to the court, 
particularly on the part of its officers.  Respect for the law and obedience to the 
orders and judgments of the tribunals by which it is enforced lies at the very 
foundation of our society.  No amount of provocation on the part of the judge can be 
permitted to excuse counsel from the obligation of his oath of office (‘I will maintain 
the respect due to courts of justice and judicial officers’); to excuse him from his 
duties imposed by the Code of Professional Responsibility; or to condone the acts of 
counsel if in fact they are in themselves contemptuous.” 
 
Therefore, respondent’s testimony regarding his perception that Lantz and 
Magistrate Jones may have acted improperly does not mitigate his actions at issue 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO 
4 
herein.  We do recognize that respondent apologized for his actions, albeit only after 
he was aware that disciplinary charges had been filed against him. 
 
After carefully reviewing the evidence, this court finds that respondent 
violated DR 7-106(C)(6) but that there was insufficient evidence to prove that 
respondent violated 1-102(A)(5) and 1-102(A)(6).  The court concurs with the 
recommendation of the board. 
 
Accordingly, respondent is publicly reprimanded.  Costs are taxed to 
respondent. 
Judgment accordingly. 
 
MOYER, C.J., DOUGLAS, RESNICK, F.E. SWEENEY, PFEIFER, COOK and 
LUNDBERG STRATTON, JJ., concur. 
__________________ 
 
Jonathan E. Coughlan, Disciplinary Counsel, and Kevin L. Williams, 
Assistant Disciplinary Counsel, for relator. 
 
Lane, Alton & Horst LLC and Alvin E. Mathews, Jr., for respondent. 
__________________