Case Title: Disciplinary Counsel v. LoDico

Citation: 2005-Ohio-4630

Docket Number: 20042172

State: ohio

Court: Ohio Supreme Court

Date: 2005-09-21T00:00:00Z

Document:
[Cite as Disciplinary Counsel v. LoDico, 106 Ohio St.3d 229, 2005-Ohio-4630.] 
 
 
 
DISCIPLINARY COUNSEL v. LODICO. 
[Cite as Disciplinary Counsel v. LoDico, 106 Ohio St.3d 229, 2005-Ohio-4630.] 
Attorneys — Misconduct — Conduct prejudicial to the administration of justice — 
Conduct adversely reflecting on attorney’s fitness to practice law — 
Undignified conduct degrading to a tribunal — Suspension with partial 
stay on conditions. 
(No. 2004-2172 — Submitted April 12, 2005 — Decided September 21, 2005.) 
ON CERTIFIED REPORT by the Board of Commissioners on Grievances and 
Discipline of the Supreme Court, No. 03-084 
__________________ 
Per Curiam. 
{¶ 1} Respondent, Steven L. LoDico of Canton, Ohio, Attorney 
Registration No. 0041715, was admitted to the practice of law in Ohio in 1989.  
Since that time, his primary professional focus has been criminal defense in 
Ohio’s state courts. 
{¶ 2} On March 16, 2004, relator, Disciplinary Counsel, filed an 
amended complaint with the Board of Commissioners on Grievances and 
Discipline, charging respondent with two counts of professional misconduct, 
which respondent answered.  The charges arise from a grievance filed by five 
judges of the Stark County Court of Common Pleas, General Division.  The 
grievance focused on separate incidents of conduct in criminal matters pending 
before two of the common pleas judges, Judge Sara Lioi and Judge Richard 
Reinbold.  Both judges had found respondent in contempt for his pervasive and 
continuing pattern of misconduct in their courtrooms.  The complaint thus 
charged that respondent “engaged in a course of conduct that was pervasive 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO 
2 
throughout the trial, wholly prejudicial to the administration of justice and 
disrespectful to the court and the profession.” 
Count I 
{¶ 3} Count I alleged that respondent committed misconduct before 
Judge Lioi during a murder prosecution of three young defendants in September 
2002.  Respondent’s misconduct began even before the jury was impaneled, with 
inappropriate, loud, and rude statements that wrongly impugned the integrity of a 
prospective juror during voir dire.  Respondent was cautioned about his conduct 
in the courtroom early in the trial proceedings.  He repeatedly ignored 
admonishments about sanctions for continued violations of Judge Lioi’s orders.  
Rather than curtailing his misconduct, however, respondent continued his 
behavior, at one point throwing money and credit cards on the bench in 
anticipation of a sanction and telling the judge, “[G]o ahead and fine me.” 
{¶ 4} Respondent continued to act in a cavalier, unprofessional manner 
thereafter.  Disregarding Judge Lioi’s orders, he spoke loudly at sidebars in an 
apparent effort to ensure that the jury heard his statements, including his 
suggestions that witnesses were lying.  Despite repeated admonishments to obey 
her rulings, respondent continued to disregard Judge Lioi’s orders.  Some were 
minor, procedural orders concerning conduct during the trial:  for example, 
questioning witnesses from across the courtroom and not from the lectern and 
making speaking objections.  More significant, substantive misconduct involved 
evidentiary and other matters, such as ignoring the permissible scope of inquiry 
on testimony presented to the grand jury.  He also made “dramatic” and 
inappropriate facial expressions in front of the jury as witnesses testified.  
Disciplinary Counsel quoted Judge Lioi’s assessment of respondent’s behavior as 
follows: 
{¶ 5} “Counsel was so obstreperous during the trial that the Court was 
required * * * to conduct one of the sidebars in chambers.  * * *  
January Term, 2005 
3 
{¶ 6} * * * “[C]ounsel continuously talked loudly and inappropriately, 
ignored the Court’s ruling by asking questions which the Court specifically 
instructed that counsel not ask; asked and re-asked questions after the Court 
instructed counsel to move on; again, argued with the Court regarding its rulings, 
made inappropriate and disrespectful comments during the trial and at sidebars, 
violated the Court’s directive regarding the use of the Grand Jury transcript. * * * 
[He made] inappropriate and unprofessional facial and other physical reactions to 
the Court’s rulings, [showed] disrespect to opposing counsel, * * * [talked while] 
the Court was talking after being asked to stop talking, and yelling at witnesses, 
asking questions in an inappropriate manner. 
{¶ 7} * * * “[D]uring the questioning by co-counsel of a Defense witness 
counsel stood up and basically began testifying.” 
{¶ 8} Following trial, Judge Lioi held a hearing and cited respondent for 
contempt, imposing a five-day period of incarceration, a $2,000 fine, and court 
costs. 
Count II 
{¶ 9} The second count of the complaint is based on respondent’s 
appearance in late December 2003 before Judge Reinbold for a hearing and a 
pretrial conference in two criminal matters.  The conduct at issue in those 
proceedings is set forth in the reversal on appeal of Judge Reinbold’s summary 
contempt citation.  See In re LoDico, Stark App. No. 2003-CA-00446, 2005-
Ohio-172, 2005 WL 100953.  In vacating the contempt citation and sentence, 
however, the court of appeals described respondent’s comments and conduct as 
“unwise, insolent and probably personally insulting.”  Id. at ¶ 101. 
{¶ 10} In the first instance, respondent made inappropriate, hostile, and 
slanderous comments before a pretrial hearing about witnesses who might testify.  
Judge Reinbold testified that respondent’s behavior, cadence of speech, inability 
to focus, and rambling accusations against possible witnesses caused him concern. 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO 
4 
{¶ 11} That behavior continued in the courtroom, where respondent 
exhibited erratic and aggressive behavior.  Judge Reinbold said that he was 
required to raise his voice to an unacceptable level and demand that respondent 
immediately stop talking before trying to engage him in an inquiry about the 
representation of a defendant in the courtroom.  During the ensuing exchange, 
respondent showed contempt through facial expressions and began to make 
inappropriate remarks to Judge Reinbold.  Although some of those remarks were 
incorporated into a transcript, Judge Reinbold stated that the transcripts fail to 
accurately reflect the tone of respondent’s speech, his physical bearing, and his 
rudeness. 
{¶ 12} The insolence that Judge Reinbold perceived led to a contempt 
finding, accompanied by a 60-day jail term, of which respondent served 12 or 13 
days before Judge Reinbold reduced the sentence. 
Disciplinary Proceedings 
{¶ 13} The board appointed a panel, to which relator and respondent 
submitted agreed stipulations and exhibits, to consider the allegations of 
misconduct.  In April 2004, the panel heard the testimony of respondent, Judge 
Lioi, Judge Reinbold, and several other witnesses.  The hearing adjourned 
temporarily, and respondent was ordered to appear for psychiatric evaluation.  See 
Gov.Bar R. V(7)(C). 
{¶ 14} Respondent objected to the evaluative report filed by Dr. Robert 
W. Alcorn, a board-certified forensic psychiatrist selected by the panel.  Dr. 
Alcorn concluded that respondent suffered from a delusional disorder of the 
persecutory type and a paranoid personality disorder that “substantially impairs” 
respondent’s ability to practice law effectively.  Respondent sought his own 
evaluation with Dr. Robert G. Kaplan, a clinical psychologist and board-certified 
forensic examiner.  Dr. Kaplan offered a different conclusion:  that respondent 
suffers from an adjustment disorder mixed with anxiety and depressed mood that 
January Term, 2005 
5 
does not affect his ability to practice law.  Both doctors testified before the panel 
in September 2004.  Thereafter, the panel issued extensive findings of fact and 
conclusions of law, which the board adopted. 
Findings of Misconduct 
{¶ 15} As to Count I, the board concluded that the record of the 
respondent’s behavior before Judge Lioi was replete with instances of 
misconduct.  Respondent consistently ignored the court’s rulings on the admission 
of evidence and the scope of permissible examination of witnesses, spoke 
inappropriately and loudly throughout the trial, exhibited inappropriate and 
unprofessional facial and physical reactions, and behaved disrespectfully toward 
the court, the witnesses, and the jury.  The board thus found respondent in 
violation of DR 1-102(A)(5) (barring conduct that is prejudicial to the 
administration of justice), 1-102(A)(6) (barring conduct that adversely reflects on 
the attorney’s fitness to practice law), 7-106(A) (requiring compliance with a 
tribunal’s rulings made in the course of a proceeding), and 7-106(C)(6) (barring 
undignified or discourteous conduct that degrades a tribunal). 
{¶ 16} The board found that some instances of respondent’s egregious 
behavior were calculated.  For example, the board found that when respondent’s 
cross-examination of a state’s witness drew an objection from the assistant 
prosecutor during the ensuing bench conference, respondent made a statement 
that “was designed simply so the jury could hear him call the witness a liar.”  The 
board concluded that such conduct was in violation of DR 7-106(C)(7), which 
proscribes the intentional or habitual violation of an established rule of procedure 
or evidence. 
{¶ 17} As to Count II, the board concluded, “Respondent’s behavior 
before Judge Reinbold was undignified and discourteous” and constituted 
inappropriate behavior.  The board found that there was clear and convincing 
evidence that respondent had engaged in undignified and discourteous conduct 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO 
6 
degrading to a tribunal in violation of DR 7-106(C)(6).  The board did not find, 
however, that respondent also had violated DR 1-102(A)(5) and 1-102(A)(6) as to 
Count II. 
Recommendation 
{¶ 18} Having determined which violations of the code were established, 
the board considered aggravation, mitigation, and sanctions.  See Section 10 of 
the Rules and Regulations Governing Procedure on Complaints and Hearings 
Before the Board of Commissioners on Grievances and Discipline (“BCGD 
Proc.Reg.”).  Factors found to be in aggravation of the misconduct were 
respondent’s pattern of misconduct before Judge Lioi, his submission of false 
statements about a conviction he received as a young Marine, and the lack of 
acknowledgement of any misconduct.  See BCGD Proc.Reg. 10(B)(1)(c), (d), (f), 
and (g).  In mitigation, the panel noted that despite prior contempt citations, 
respondent did not have a previous disciplinary record, was cooperative, had no 
dishonest or improper motive in the misconduct, and is of good reputation, 
particularly among his clients.  See BCGD Proc.Reg. 10(B)(2)(a), (b), (d), and 
(e). 
{¶ 19} The panel recommended that respondent be suspended from the 
practice of law for 18 months, with the entire suspension stayed on various 
conditions, including respondent’s diagnosis and treatment by a psychiatrist and 
the appointment of an attorney to monitor his practice.  Noting that prior contempt 
citations had failed to cure respondent’s contumacious conduct as evidenced by 
the “outrageous acts” in the instant cases, however, the board rejected the panel’s 
recommended sanction.  Instead, the board recommended a stay of 12 months of 
the 18-month suspension but adopted the panel’s conditions for reinstatement to 
the practice of law. 
 
 
January Term, 2005 
7 
Review 
{¶ 20} Respondent objects to the findings and conclusions of the board.  
He disputes the findings of misconduct, asserting that his behavior “subjectively 
consists of demonstrative body language and objectively consists of non-profane 
but persistent verbal language.”  He avers that in appearing before Judge Lioi and 
Judge Reinbold, he was not profane, disparaging, or disrespectful.  Similarly, he 
contends that his conduct before Judge Reinbold was not improper.  He suggests 
that Judge Reinbold’s “antagonistic” demeanor and “confrontational,” rather than 
ameliorative, attitude toward respondent during the hearings in question are 
important to understanding the events that occurred. 
{¶ 21} In an apparent effort to explain how such supposedly innocuous 
conduct could give rise to the complaints at issue here, respondent suggests that 
the problems arise from the “divergent approaches” that Judge Lioi, Judge 
Reinbold, and he employ, particularly given the small confines of their legal 
community.  He essentially argues that familiarity bred contempt. 
{¶ 22} Respondent also states that his role as defense counsel must be 
considered in the assessment of his conduct.  He argues that “defense of those 
accused of criminal activity is, by definition, a professional task imbued with not 
only a hard-bitten atmosphere, but also embraces highly individualized personal 
decisions which ultimately impact the accused’s rights to life, liberty and/or 
property * * *.  [This] practice lends itself to a passion and zeal not typically seen 
in other types of litigation, often accompanied by a sense of stubbornness and 
righteous indignation necessary to adequately prepare and present a defense for 
clients * * * *.”  He argues that this grievance implicates the unique question of 
whether criminal defense counsel can be subjected to professional discipline for 
the conduct described. 
{¶ 23} Having reviewed carefully the voluminous record in this case, 
including the transcripts of the disciplinary hearing and the trial proceedings at 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO 
8 
issue in the grievance, the parties’ agreed stipulations, the reports prepared by the 
mental health professionals, and the submissions of the parties, we overrule 
respondent’s objections and adopt the board’s findings of fact and conclusions of 
law.  We agree that respondent violated DR 1-102(A)(5), 1-102(A)(6), 7-106(A), 
7-106(C)(6), and 7-106(C)(7) as found by the board. 
{¶ 24} As the board correctly concluded, Judge Lioi expended an 
inordinate amount of time and energy managing respondent’s repeated and often 
deliberate attempts to ignore her rulings and orders, to improperly influence the 
jury with references to information that was not admitted into evidence, and to 
engage in undignified or discourteous conduct with jurors, witnesses, and counsel.  
Respondent’s pattern of misconduct in Judge Lioi’s courtroom appears to have 
been an effort to create “ ‘an atmosphere of utter confusion and chaos, quoting the 
trial court’s contempt charge.’ ”  Mayberry v. Pennsylvania (1971), 400 U.S. 455, 
462, 91 S.Ct. 499, 27 L.Ed.2d 532.  Rather than advancing the pursuit of justice, 
respondent advanced obstruction, obfuscation, and opprobrium. 
{¶ 25} “Respect for and confidence in the judicial office are essential to 
the maintenance of any orderly system of justice.”  In re Vincenti (1983), 92 N.J. 
591, 603, 458 A.2d 1268.  The rule of law is based upon respect for the law; 
respect for the law entails respect for those who administer it.  See Attorney 
Grievance Comm. of Maryland v. Link (2004), 380 Md. 405, 425, 844 A.2d 1197.  
Rather than reinforcing respect for the rule of law and confidence in its 
application, respondent repeatedly attempted to denigrate the rules and question 
their implementation by Judge Lioi.  There can be no genuine doubt that such 
conduct was in violation of the rules cited. 
{¶ 26} We further find that during his appearances before Judge Reinbold, 
respondent’s behavior was undignified and discourteous and served to degrade the 
tribunal.  Although such conduct did not rise to as egregious a level as did the 
conduct in Judge Lioi’s courtroom, and although the board noted a “personality 
January Term, 2005 
9 
conflict” between respondent and Judge Reinbold, respondent’s conduct was 
more than ample to establish a violation of the rule.  Two men were charged with 
serious offenses; at least one faced imprisonment, and the other presented difficult 
and complex issues.  Respondent’s conduct in the courtroom was a disservice to 
each of them, as well as to Judge Reinbold. 
{¶ 27} In finding that these violations occurred, we note that respondent’s 
misconduct seems to be part of a much grander pattern.  See, e.g., In re LoDico 
(June 26, 2000), Stark App. No. 1999CA00159, 2000 WL 873787.  The pattern is 
evidenced by the testimony of witnesses before the board as to other contempt 
findings and respondent’s own suggestion that he has paid thousands of dollars in 
fines for contempt.  Such a record is a mark of shame rather than a badge of 
honor.  That respondent has not faced disciplinary action previously in no way 
mitigates the conduct, particularly in the absence of any acknowledgement of 
wrongdoing. 
{¶ 28} Even when confronted with the false statements he had made 
regarding his history in the Marine Corps, respondent does not admit error.  His 
misrepresentations about his experience as a Marine are certainly not dispositive 
in this case, but they are troubling in that they reinforce the questions about his 
mental health and the possibility that respondent reconstructs history to fit his 
end.  Respondent’s misstatements serve to weaken his credibility, even if they 
were good-faith mistakes rather than self-aggrandizing. 
{¶ 29} Despite his failings, it is clear that respondent had no dishonest or 
selfish motive in the conduct at issue here — at least in the sense that the actions 
in question were part of an effort, albeit an improper one, to exonerate his clients.  
It seems beyond cavil that respondent’s motivations are consistent with his belief 
in helping his clients.  And despite whatever reservations members of the bar and 
bench may have about his representation, there is ample showing that respondent 
is of good reputation, well liked, and respected by his clients. 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO 
10 
{¶ 30} In turning to the issue of sanctions, we are cognizant of 
respondent’s service to criminal defendants and the intensely difficult nature of 
such work, which often presents tragic circumstances, visceral reactions, and 
great risks for the accused.  Although criminal cases bring the responsibility and 
necessity of a vigorous defense, an attorney is not endowed with a concomitant 
right to denigrate the court in discharging that responsibility. 
{¶ 31} The law demands that all counsel engender respect and dignity for 
the adjudication process.  Though duty-bound to afford their clients the most 
competent representation of which they are capable, counsel are equally 
constrained by the mandates of integrity and professionalism imposed on all 
counsel as officers of the courts in which they appear.  No proper defense or 
strategy warrants the type of misconduct exhibited by respondent. 
{¶ 32} In our findings, we do not quantify the standards of civility that are 
imposed upon counsel or qualify the elusive boundary between zealous, 
aggressive advocacy and contemptuous, vituperative conduct.  Nor do we reduce 
counsel to “obsequious sycophants in order to avoid offending the fragile 
sensibilities of judges.”  Disciplinary Counsel v. Breiner (1999), 89 Haw. 167, 
173, 969 P.2d 1285.  Rather, we “merely require that the members of [this] 
learned profession * * * act in accordance with the time-honored traditions that 
experience has taught us are necessary to protect the office of the court and the 
process of justice from devolving into the barroom brawl.”  Id.  We simply 
reinforce the mandate that our attorneys advocate within the rules of law, in the 
light of rational thought and reason rather than innuendo and incivility.  Counsel 
must recognize that in every trial, the integrity of the process is as much at stake 
as the interests of the accused.  See Mayberry, 400 U.S. at 468, 91 S.Ct. 499, 27 
L.Ed.2d 532 (Burger, C.J., concurring).  Justice must always appear just.  Id. at 
465, 91 S.Ct. 499, 27 L.Ed.2d 532. 
January Term, 2005 
11 
{¶ 33} Accordingly, we agree not only with the board’s finding that 
respondent has committed the violations charged, but also with its 
recommendation that a substantial sanction be imposed for the misconduct.  
Having considered the recommendations of the panel and the board, we think that 
a more significant sanction is warranted.  Respondent is therefore suspended from 
the practice of law in Ohio for 18 months; however, the last 6 months of the 
suspension are stayed under the following conditions:  
{¶ 34} (1)  Respondent shall permit relator to appoint an attorney to 
monitor his practice during the stayed portion of the suspension. 
{¶ 35} (2) Respondent must seek and obtain treatment from a psychiatrist 
of his own selection, provided that the psychiatrist selected (a) is provided with 
the reports of Dr. Alcorn and Dr. Kaplan, (b) is approved by relator, (c) is 
certified by the American Board of Psychiatry and Neurology, (d) reports a 
diagnosis and a treatment plan to relator, and (e) thereafter reports to relator at 
least once every 90 days on respondent’s progress and compliance. 
{¶ 36} (3) Respondent must bear the costs of psychiatric evaluation and 
treatment. 
{¶ 37} If respondent violates the conditions of the stay, the stay will be 
lifted, and respondent shall serve the entire 18-month suspension.  Further, in 
addition to the requirements of Gov.Bar R. V(10), respondent shall, upon any 
application for reinstatement, provide a report from the psychiatrist that 
respondent is able to return to the competent, ethical, and professional practice of 
law.  Costs are taxed to respondent. 
Judgment accordingly. 
 
MOYER, C.J., RESNICK, PFEIFER, LUNDBERG STRATTON, O’CONNOR, 
O’DONNELL and LANZINGER, JJ., concur. 
__________________ 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO 
12 
Jonathan E. Coughlan, Disciplinary Counsel, and Stacy Solochek 
Beckman, Assistant Disciplinary Counsel, for relator. 
Koblentz & Koblentz, Richard S. Koblentz, and Craig J. Morice, for 
respondent. 
______________________