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

Citation: 2010-Ohio-247

Docket Number: 

State: ohio

Court: Ohio Supreme Court

Date: 2010-02-03T00:00:00Z

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. 2010-Ohio-247.] 
 
 
 
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. 2010-OHIO-247 
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. 2010-Ohio-247.] 
Attorney misconduct — Attorney committed bigamy during stayed, one-year 
suspension for other misconduct — Stay of suspension lifted — Six-month 
suspension for bigamy to run concurrently with one-year reinstated 
suspension. 
(No. 2009-1534 ⎯ Submitted October 20, 2009 ⎯ Decided February 3, 2010.) 
ON CERTIFIED REPORT by the Board of Commissioners on Grievances and 
Discipline of the Supreme Court, No. 08-055. 
__________________ 
Per Curiam. 
{¶ 1} Respondent, Dennis A. DiMartino of Youngstown, Ohio, Attorney 
Registration No. 0039270, was admitted to the practice of law in Ohio in 1987.  In 
December 1994, we suspended respondent's license to practice for six months, 
staying the suspension on conditions, because he failed to timely respond to a 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO 
2 
 
client's inquiries about her case, to provide that client with a settlement statement, 
and to promptly forward the client her portion of settlement proceeds.  Mahoning 
Cty. Bar Assn. v. DiMartino (1994), 71 Ohio St.3d 95, 642 N.E.2d 342.  On July 
18, 2007, because respondent failed in his duty to diligently represent a client for 
whom he had promised to seek postconviction relief, we imposed a one-year 
suspension of his license, staying the suspension on condition of monitored 
probation and no further misconduct.  Mahoning Cty. Bar Assn. v. DiMartino, 114 
Ohio St.3d 174, 2007-Ohio-3605, 870 N.E.2d 1166. 
{¶ 2} The Board of Commissioners on Grievances and Discipline now 
recommends that we suspend respondent’s license for six months, but stay the last 
three months of the suspension, again on conditions that he complete one year of 
monitored probation and no further misconduct.  The recommendation is based on 
the board’s findings that respondent committed bigamy in North Carolina, a 
felony in that state, and thereby violated Prof.Cond.R. 8.4(c) (prohibiting a lawyer 
from engaging in conduct involving fraud, deceit, or dishonesty).  We agree that 
respondent violated this rule of professional conduct. 
{¶ 3} Although the sanction recommended by the board is in response 
solely to the misconduct committed in this case, our disposition must also reflect 
that respondent engaged in this misconduct during the one-year stayed suspension 
imposed on July 18, 2007.  Because respondent violated the terms of that stay, we 
lift the stay, reinstate that suspension, and as a sanction for the impropriety in this 
case, order a six-month suspension to run concurrently with the one-year 
reinstated suspension. 
{¶ 4} Relator, Mahoning County Bar Association, charged respondent 
with one count of misconduct, alleging among other ethical breaches a violation 
of Prof.Cond.R. 8.4(c).  A panel of three board members heard the case, including 
the parties’ stipulations to the cited misconduct, and made findings of fact, 
conclusions of law, and a recommendation for a license suspension of six months 
January Term, 2010 
3 
 
with the last three months stayed on conditions.  The board adopted the panel’s 
findings of misconduct and recommended sanction. 
{¶ 5} The parties have not objected to the board’s report. 
Misconduct 
{¶ 6} Respondent, a seasoned criminal defense attorney, married his 
longtime girlfriend in early August 2001.  The couple eventually separated when 
respondent’s wife asked him to move out, and in September 2005, they sought the 
dissolution of their marriage in the Portage County Common Pleas Court.  That 
court dismissed the dissolution proceeding when respondent’s wife failed in 
January 2006 to appear at a hearing. 
{¶ 7} In April 2007, respondent filed in the same court an action for 
divorce.  He had become involved with another woman in the time since he 
separated from his wife and had arranged to be remarried in North Carolina on 
July 7, 2007.  Respondent expected his divorce to be finalized by that time; 
however, negotiations to terminate the marriage broke down, and the divorce did 
not become final by respondent’s new wedding date. 
{¶ 8} Respondent nevertheless married again.  Beforehand, respondent 
signed a marriage-license application in which he falsely represented that it was 
his first marriage.  Respondent did not disclose to his new wife that he was not yet 
divorced. 
{¶ 9} Respondent’s first wife alerted North Carolina authorities of his 
remarriage, and he was investigated for the crime of bigamy, a felony in North 
Carolina.  She also caused a grievance to be filed with relator, alleging that 
respondent’s failure to terminate one marriage before entering another constituted 
unethical conduct.  Prosecutors in North Carolina ultimately opted not to 
prosecute.  Respondent’s divorce became final in August 2007, and he then 
legally married his second wife. 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO 
4 
 
{¶ 10} Respondent admitted that his conduct constituted a violation of 
Prof.Cond.R. 8.4(c).  The board accepted this admission, as do we. 
Sanction 
{¶ 11} When imposing sanctions for attorney misconduct, we consider 
relevant factors, including the ethical duties that the lawyer violated and 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.  Because each disciplinary case is unique, we 
are not limited to the factors specified in the rule but may take into account “all 
relevant factors” in determining what sanction to impose.  BCGD Proc.Reg. 
10(B). 
{¶ 12} Instances of bigamy involving Ohio lawyers are rare.  In Cuyahoga 
Cty. Bar Assn. v. Muttalib (2001), 90 Ohio St.3d 529, 740 N.E.2d 246, however, 
we indefinitely suspended a lawyer from practice because he failed to act on 
behalf of three clients, failed to return fees paid by those clients, and had also 
married without first terminating a prior marriage.  That lawyer had also 
abandoned his first wife and four children.  He then ignored the disciplinary 
process, making it necessary for a disposition by default. 
{¶ 13} Respondent’s situation is different.  Although his disciplinary 
record, which includes several instances of client neglect, is an aggravating factor 
under BCGD Proc.Reg. 10(B)(1)(a), respondent was, unlike  the attorney in 
Muttalib,  in the process of ending his first marriage.  Upon learning of 
respondent’s impending nuptials, his wife had rejected a final settlement at the 
last minute and asked for more money.  Though he knew of this development, 
respondent admittedly exercised poor judgment by deciding to go ahead with the 
January Term, 2010 
5 
 
wedding.  Within days after his illegal marriage, however, respondent notified the 
wedding official and encouraged the official to cooperate with law enforcement. 
{¶ 14} Also unlike the lawyer in Muttalib, respondent cooperated in the 
disciplinary process, a mitigating factor under BCGD Proc.Reg. 10(B)(2)(d).  He 
has expressed great remorse and embarrassment over his wrongdoing, which did 
not compromise any client’s interest.  Testimony from his character witness and 
many reference letters as to his professional competence and commitment to 
clients weigh heavily in his favor.  See BCGD Proc.Reg. 10(B)(2)(e).  
Respondent’s commitment to community service is also evident from the record.  
Muttalib does not apply here in light of all the mitigating factors and the 
circumstances of respondent’s misconduct. 
{¶ 15} We accept the board’s recommendation insofar as it recommends 
imposition of a six-month suspension for the act of bigamy.  But respondent 
violated Prof.Cond.R. 8.4(c) while he was subject to a stayed one-year license 
suspension, with the stay conditioned upon his committing no further misconduct.  
Mahoning Cty. Bar Assn. v. DiMartino, 114 Ohio St.3d 174, 2007-Ohio-3605, 
870 N.E.2d 1166.  This violation of the terms of the stay requires his suspension 
from practice for one year. 
{¶ 16} We therefore lift the stay and reinstate the one-year suspension 
from practicing law in Ohio as ordered in Mahoning Cty. Bar Assn. v. DiMartino, 
114 Ohio St.3d 174, 2007-Ohio-3605, 870 N.E.2d 1166.  As a sanction for the 
impropriety committed in this case, respondent’s license to practice law in Ohio is 
also suspended for six months, with the suspension to run concurrently with the 
reinstated suspension.  Costs are taxed to respondent. 
Judgment accordingly. 
 
MOYER, 
C.J., 
and 
PFEIFER, 
LUNDBERG 
STRATTON, 
O’CONNOR, 
O’DONNELL, LANZINGER, and CUPP, JJ., concur. 
__________________ 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO 
6 
 
Green, Haines & Sgambati and Ronald E. Slipski; and Comstock, Springer 
& Wilson Co., L.P.A., and David C. Comstock Jr., for relator. 
Law Office of John B. Juhasz and John B. Juhasz, for respondent. 
______________________