Case Title: Disciplinary Counsel v. Martyniuk

Citation: 2017-Ohio-4329

Docket Number: 2016-1821

State: ohio

Court: Ohio Supreme Court

Date: 2017-06-20T00:00:00Z

Document:
[Until this opinion appears in the Ohio Official Reports advance sheets, it may be cited as 
Disciplinary Counsel v. Martyniuk, Slip Opinion No. 2017-Ohio-4329.] 
 
 
 
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. 2017-OHIO-4329 
DISCIPLINARY COUNSEL v. MARTYNIUK. 
[Until this opinion appears in the Ohio Official Reports advance sheets, it 
may be cited as Disciplinary Counsel v. Martyniuk, Slip Opinion No.  
2017-Ohio-4329.] 
Attorneys—Misconduct—Violations of the Rules of Professional Conduct—
Indefinite suspension. 
(No. 2016-1821—Submitted March 1, 2017—Decided June 20, 2017.) 
ON CERTIFIED REPORT by the Board of Professional Conduct of the Supreme 
Court, No. 2016-015. 
_______________________ 
Per Curiam. 
{¶ 1} Respondent, Andrew Osyp Martyniuk, of Kent, Ohio, Attorney 
Registration No. 0064997, was admitted to the practice of law in Ohio in 1995.  On 
November 20, 2015, we suspended his license to practice for an interim period 
pursuant to Gov.Bar R. V(18)(A)(1)(a) upon receiving notice that he had been 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO 
 
2
convicted of multiple felonies.  In re Martyniuk, 144 Ohio St.3d 1265, 2015-Ohio-
4746, 45 N.E.3d 1013. 
{¶ 2} In April 2016, relator, disciplinary counsel, charged Martyniuk with 
violations of Prof.Cond.R. 8.4(b) (prohibiting a lawyer from committing an illegal 
act that adversely reflects on the lawyer’s honesty or trustworthiness) and 8.4(h) 
(prohibiting a lawyer from engaging in conduct that adversely reflects on the 
lawyer’s fitness to practice law) based on his criminal conduct.  The Board of 
Professional Conduct found that Martyniuk committed the charged misconduct and 
recommended that he be indefinitely suspended from the practice of law with no 
credit for the time served under his interim felony suspension.  We adopt the 
board’s findings of fact, misconduct, and aggravating and mitigating factors and its 
recommended sanction. 
Misconduct 
{¶ 3} On September 29, 2014, Martyniuk pleaded guilty to 20 fourth-
degree-felony counts of pandering sexually oriented material involving a minor in 
violation of R.C. 2907.322(A)(5).  Martyniuk stipulated that he had knowledge of 
the character of the material or performance involved and that he knowingly 
solicited, received, purchased, exchanged, possessed, or controlled material that 
showed a minor participating or engaging in sexual activity, masturbation, or 
bestiality.  As a result of that conduct, he was sentenced to a five-year prison term, 
which was suspended on the condition that he serve five years of community 
control, complete a sex-offender evaluation and follow all the evaluator’s 
recommendations, and pay a fine of $5,000 plus court costs.  He was also required 
to register as a Tier II sex offender for a period of 25 years. 
{¶ 4} The parties stipulated that Martyniuk’s conduct adversely reflects 
on his fitness to practice law in violation of Prof.Cond.R. 8.4(h), and the matter 
proceeded to a hearing before a three-member panel of the board.  Consistent with 
our decision in Disciplinary Counsel v. Bricker, 137 Ohio St.3d 35, 2013-Ohio-
January Term, 2017 
 
3
3998, 997 N.E.2d 500, the board expressly determined that Martyniuk’s conduct 
involving pornographic materials relating to minors was sufficiently egregious to 
warrant finding the violation.  It also found that by engaging in that criminal 
conduct, he committed an illegal act that adversely reflects on his honesty and 
trustworthiness in violation of Prof.Cond.R. 8.4(b). 
{¶ 5} We adopt the board’s findings of fact and misconduct. 
Sanction 
{¶ 6} When imposing sanctions for attorney misconduct, we consider 
several relevant factors, including the ethical duties the lawyer violated, the 
aggravating and mitigating factors listed in Gov.Bar R. V(13), and the sanctions 
imposed in similar cases. 
{¶ 7} The parties stipulated and the board found that just one aggravating 
factor is present—Martyniuk committed multiple offenses.  See Gov.Bar R. 
V(13)(B)(4).  And the parties agree and the board found that the applicable 
mitigating factors include the absence of a prior disciplinary record, Martyniuk’s 
full and free disclosure (including his November 2015 self-reporting of his 
convictions to relator) and cooperative attitude in the disciplinary proceedings, his 
acknowledgment of the wrongful nature of his misconduct, and the imposition of 
other penalties and sanctions.  See Gov.Bar R. V(13)(C)(1), (4), and (6). 
{¶ 8} Martyniuk’s disciplinary-hearing testimony demonstrates that he 
has never actively engaged in the practice of law.  He was honorably discharged 
from the United States Air Force in 1992 and served as a research associate at the 
University of Cincinnati both during and after completing law school.  Although he 
drafted several powers of attorney for people he knew through his church, he never 
charged a fee for his services.  With no job opportunities available to him in 
Cincinnati, he moved into his parents’ Kent home in 2003 and worked as the fiscal 
officer of the Kent Free Library until he was fired after his employer discovered 
pornography on his office computer in 2013. 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO 
 
4
{¶ 9} Since his arrest, Martyniuk has served as the primary caretaker for 
his elderly parents.  At his disciplinary hearing, he expressed his desire to practice 
law but stated that he does not know what his future holds.  He has presented no 
evidence regarding a mental-health diagnosis or his ability to engage in the 
competent, ethical, and professional practice of law, either now or in the future. 
{¶ 10} The board recommended that we indefinitely suspend Martyniuk 
from the practice of law and that he receive no credit for the time he has served 
under his interim felony suspension, and neither party has objected to that 
recommendation.  An indefinite suspension with no credit for the time served under 
an interim felony suspension is often the appropriate sanction for an attorney who 
has engaged in sexually motivated conduct involving children, and we agree that it 
is appropriate in this case.  See Disciplinary Counsel v. Grossman, 143 Ohio St.3d 
302, 2015-Ohio-2340, 37 N.E.3d 155 (indefinitely suspending an attorney 
convicted of receiving visual depictions of child pornography after he was caught 
in a law-enforcement operation in which he had discussed various sex acts 
involving a fictitious 11-year-old girl and had gone to a prearranged location 
expecting to meet her); Dayton Bar Assn. v. Ballato, 143 Ohio St.3d 76, 2014-Ohio-
5063, 34 N.E.3d 858 (indefinitely suspending an attorney convicted of a single 
count of possessing child pornography that he ordered and downloaded from the 
Internet); Disciplinary Counsel v. Butler, 128 Ohio St.3d 319, 2011-Ohio-236, 943 
N.E.2d 1025 (indefinitely suspending an attorney convicted of ten felony counts 
involving pandering sexually oriented material involving a minor). 
{¶ 11} Accordingly, Andrew Osyp Martyniuk is indefinitely suspended 
from the practice of law in Ohio with no credit for the time he has served under his 
interim felony suspension.  Costs are taxed to Martyniuk. 
Judgment accordingly. 
O’CONNOR, C.J., and KENNEDY, FRENCH, O’NEILL, and DEWINE, JJ., 
concur. 
January Term, 2017 
 
5
O’DONNELL, J., would permanently disbar respondent. 
FISCHER, J., not participating. 
_________________ 
Scott J. Drexel, Disciplinary Counsel, and Jennifer A. Bondurant, Assistant 
Disciplinary Counsel, for relator. 
Buckingham, Doolittle & Burroughs, L.L.C., and Peter Thomas Cahoon, 
for respondent. 
_________________