Case Title: Mahoning Cty. Bar Assn. v. Martino

Citation: 2016-Ohio-5665

Docket Number: 2016-0537

State: ohio

Court: Ohio Supreme Court

Date: 2016-09-07T00:00:00Z

Document:
[Until this opinion appears in the Ohio Official Reports advance sheets, it may be cited as 
Mahoning Cty. Bar Assn. v. DiMartino, Slip Opinion No. 2016-Ohio-5665.] 
 
 
 
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-5665 
MAHONING COUNTY BAR ASSOCIATION v. DIMARTINO. 
[Until this opinion appears in the Ohio Official Reports advance sheets, it 
may be cited as Mahoning Cty. Bar Assn. v. DiMartino, Slip Opinion No. 
2016-Ohio-5665.] 
Attorneys—Misconduct—Violations of the Rules of Professional Conduct, 
including failing to act with reasonable diligence in representing a client 
and failing to keep the client reasonably informed about the status of a legal 
matter, failing to hold client’s property in an interest-bearing client trust 
account, and failing to cooperate in a disciplinary investigation—Indefinite 
suspension. 
(No. 2016-0537—Submitted June 1, 2016—Decided September 7, 2016.) 
ON CERTIFIED REPORT by the Board of Professional Conduct of the  
Supreme Court, No. 2015-0060. 
__________________ 
 
 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO 
 
2
Per Curiam. 
{¶ 1} Respondent, Dennis Armand DiMartino, of Youngstown, Ohio, 
Attorney Registration No. 0039270, was admitted to the practice of law in Ohio in 
1987. 
{¶ 2} This is DiMartino’s fifth attorney-discipline case before this court.  In 
1994, we sanctioned him with a stayed six-month suspension for failing to respond 
to a client’s inquiries, failing to provide that client with a settlement statement, and 
failing to forward the client’s portion of settlement proceeds.  Mahoning Cty. Bar 
Assn. v. DiMartino, 71 Ohio St.3d 95, 642 N.E.2d 342 (1994).  In 2007, we 
sanctioned him with a stayed one-year suspension for neglecting a client matter.  
Mahoning Cty. Bar Assn. v. DiMartino, 114 Ohio St.3d 174, 2007-Ohio-3605, 870 
N.E.2d 1166.  In 2010, we found that he had engaged in dishonest conduct by 
falsely representing on an out-of-state marriage application that he had never been 
married, although his Ohio divorce case was pending at that time.  Because his 
misconduct occurred during the period of his 2007 stayed suspension, we reinstated 
the one-year suspension from the previous case and also sanctioned him with a 
concurrent six-month suspension for his dishonesty.  Mahoning Cty. Bar Assn. v. 
DiMartino, 124 Ohio St.3d 360, 2010-Ohio-247, 922 N.E.2d 220.  Finally, in 
February 2016, we found that he had committed misconduct in two client matters, 
including neglecting the clients’ cases, misusing his client trust account, engaging 
in dishonest conduct toward a client, failing to communicate the nature and scope 
of his representation to a client and the basis of his fees, and failing to cooperate in 
disciplinary investigations.  We indefinitely suspended him from the practice of 
law and imposed conditions on any potential reinstatement.  Mahoning Cty. Bar 
Assn. v. DiMartino, 145 Ohio St.3d 391, 2016-Ohio-536, 49 N.E.3d 1280. 
{¶ 3} While DiMartino’s fourth disciplinary case was pending before this 
court, relator, the Mahoning County Bar Association, charged him with neglecting 
another client matter and failing to cooperate in the ensuing disciplinary 
January Term, 2016 
 
3
investigation.  DiMartino stipulated to most of the charged misconduct, and the 
parties jointly recommended that we sanction him with an indefinite suspension 
that would run concurrently with the indefinite suspension we imposed in February 
2016. 
{¶ 4} Upon consideration of the evidence presented at DiMartino’s 
disciplinary hearing, the Board of Professional Conduct recommends that we 
impose a separate indefinite suspension that would prevent DiMartino from 
petitioning for reinstatement for at least two years from the date of the disciplinary 
order in this case.  Neither party has filed objections to the board’s report and 
recommendation.  Based on our independent review, we adopt the board’s findings 
of misconduct and agree with its recommended sanction. 
Misconduct 
{¶ 5} In June 2014, George Michael Joseph paid DiMartino $1,800 to help 
him secure possession of personal property that Joseph believed was being 
wrongfully withheld by his former girlfriend.  DiMartino promised to file the 
necessary court pleadings, but he failed to take any action to help his client.  He 
also failed to respond to Joseph’s repeated phone calls and office visits.  And when 
Joseph left a phone message asking for a refund of his fee, DiMartino failed to 
comply with his client’s request. 
{¶ 6} In November 2014, Joseph filed a grievance with relator, but 
DiMartino did not respond to relator’s repeated letters of inquiry regarding the 
grievance.  Finally, in June 2015, DiMartino responded to one of relator’s letters, 
and he later agreed to refund Joseph’s money.  Additionally, during the disciplinary 
process, DiMartino admitted that he never deposited Joseph’s money into his client 
trust account and instead placed the funds into his general business account—even 
though he did not complete any work on the case. 
{¶ 7} Based on this conduct, the parties stipulated and the board found that 
DiMartino violated Prof.Cond.R. 1.3 (requiring a lawyer to act with reasonable 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO 
 
4
diligence in representing a client), 1.4(a)(3) (requiring a lawyer to keep the client 
reasonably informed about the status of a matter), 1.4(a)(4) (requiring a lawyer to 
comply as soon as practicable with reasonable requests for information from the 
client), and 1.15(a) (requiring a lawyer to hold property of clients in an interest-
bearing client trust account, separate from the lawyer’s own property) and Gov.Bar 
R. V(9)(G) (requiring a lawyer to cooperate with a disciplinary investigation).  We 
agree with these findings of misconduct. 
Sanction 
{¶ 8} When imposing sanctions for attorney misconduct, we consider 
several relevant factors, including the ethical duties the lawyer violated, relevant 
aggravating and mitigating factors, and the sanctions imposed in similar cases.  See 
Gov.Bar R. V(13)(A). 
Aggravating and mitigating factors 
{¶ 9} The board found two aggravating factors:  DiMartino has prior 
discipline and he initially failed to cooperate in the disciplinary process.  See 
Gov.Bar R. V(13)(B)(1) and (5).  The board also noted, however, that after the 
filing of relator’s complaint, DiMartino cooperated in the disciplinary proceeding 
and admitted to almost all of the allegations against him. 
{¶ 10} In mitigation, the board found that DiMartino lacked a selfish or 
dishonest motive, made restitution to Joseph, and submitted numerous letters from 
local judges and attorneys indicating that DiMartino is an excellent attorney.  See 
Gov.Bar R. V(13)(C)(2), (3), and (5).  And unlike in his most recent disciplinary 
case, the board found that DiMartino had submitted sufficient evidence 
demonstrating the existence of a mental disorder.  See Gov.Bar R. V(13)(C)(7).  
Specifically, the board noted that DiMartino had been receiving treatment for 
depression-related mental disorders since his previous disciplinary case and has 
been involved with three health-care professionals and a spiritual group.  
DiMartino’s treating psychologist opined that the grievances against him were 
January Term, 2016 
 
5
directly related to his mental disorders, that he has made good progress since his 
treatment commenced a year ago, and that he will be able to return to his legal 
practice and adhere to the professional standard of conduct. 
Applicable precedent 
{¶ 11} The board noted that in looking at the facts here in isolation, 
DiMartino’s misconduct may have warranted a term suspension, perhaps partially 
stayed.  However, the board concluded that “it is impossible to overlook the fact 
that Respondent has been disciplined on four previous occasions by the Court and 
that the instant misconduct took place when Respondent was being investigated and 
prosecuted for other more serious misconduct.”  We agree.  The underlying 
misconduct here is not uncommon or particularly egregious.  Yet because this is 
DiMartino’s fifth disciplinary case and he committed some of the misconduct while 
being investigating or prosecuted for his fourth case makes this an extraordinary 
set of circumstances. 
{¶ 12} Our jurisprudence does not contain many cases involving attorneys 
with similar disciplinary records.  But as in all attorney-discipline matters, we are 
guided by the “premise that the sanction must be sufficient to protect the public 
from further ethical infractions.”  Disciplinary Counsel v. Parker, 116 Ohio St.3d 
64, 2007-Ohio-5635, 876 N.E.2d 556, ¶ 121. 
{¶ 13} The board recommends that we indefinitely suspend DiMartino from 
the practice of law and impose conditions on his potential reinstatement to ensure 
that he continues treatment for his mental disorders.  We have issued the same 
sanction for similar recurring or pervasive attorney misconduct based on a lawyer’s 
probable recovery from the mental illness or addiction that caused the ethical 
breaches.  See, e.g., Cincinnati Bar Assn. v. Lawson, 119 Ohio St.3d 58, 2008-Ohio-
3340, 891 N.E.2d 749 (indefinitely suspending an attorney for, among other things, 
neglecting client cases, failing to return unearned fees, misusing his client trust 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO 
 
6
account, and failing to cooperate in numerous grievance investigations over a 
period during which the attorney was under the influence of drugs). 
{¶ 14} In this case, we find that the board’s recommended sanction serves 
to protect the public while also leaving open the possibility that with continued 
treatment, DiMartino might one day be able to return to the competent, ethical, and 
professional practice of law.  Accordingly, we accept the board’s recommended 
sanction. 
Conclusion 
{¶ 15} For the reasons explained above, Dennis Armand DiMartino is 
hereby indefinitely suspended from the practice of law in Ohio.  Pursuant to 
Gov.Bar R. V(25), he is not eligible to petition for reinstatement until a minimum 
of two years after the issuance of our order.  Any future reinstatement is conditioned 
on DiMartino’s (1) compliance with the conditions we imposed in Mahoning Cty. 
Bar Assn. v. DiMartino, 145 Ohio St.3d 391, 2016-Ohio-536, 49 N.E.3d 1280, (2) 
submission of proof that he has continued his treatment as recommended by a 
qualified health-care professional and has complied with his contract with the Ohio 
Lawyers Assistance Program, and (3) submission of proof that he has completed 
appropriate continuing-legal-education courses in law-office management, 
specifically in the area of client trust accounts.  Costs are taxed to DiMartino. 
Judgment accordingly. 
O’CONNOR, C.J., and PFEIFER, O’DONNELL, KENNEDY, FRENCH, and 
O’NEILL, JJ., concur. 
LANZINGER, J., dissents and would permanently disbar respondent. 
_________________ 
David Comstock Jr., for relator. 
John Juhasz Jr., for respondent. 
_________________