Title: Mahoning Cty. Bar Assn. v. Atway

State: ohio

Issuer: Ohio Supreme Court

Document:

[Until this opinion appears in the Ohio Official Reports advance sheets, it may be cited as 
Mahoning Cty. Bar Assn. v. Atway, Slip Opinion No. 2018-Ohio-10.] 
 
 
 
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. 2018-OHIO-10 
MAHONING COUNTY BAR ASSOCIATION v. ATWAY. 
[Until this opinion appears in the Ohio Official Reports advance sheets, it 
may be cited as Mahoning Cty. Bar Assn. v. Atway, Slip Opinion No.  
2018-Ohio-10.] 
Attorneys—Misconduct—Felony conviction for conspiring to prevent another 
person from freely exercising a legal right—Representing a client using 
means that have no other purpose than to embarrass or harass a third 
person—Committing illegal act reflecting adversely on lawyer’s honesty or 
trustworthiness—Engaging in conduct prejudicial to administration of 
justice—Two-year suspension with no credit for time served. 
(No. 2017-1082—Submitted September 13, 2017—Decided January 3, 2018.) 
ON CERTIFIED REPORT by the Board of Professional Conduct of the Supreme 
Court, No. 2016-064. 
_______________________ 
 
 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO 
 
2
Per Curiam. 
{¶ 1} Respondent, Neal Ghaleb Atway, of Youngstown, Ohio, Attorney 
Registration No. 0059252, was admitted to the practice of law in Ohio in 1992.  In 
April 2016, we suspended his license on an interim basis after receiving notice that 
he had been convicted of a felony.  In re Atway, 146 Ohio St.3d 1216, 2016-Ohio-
1452, 51 N.E.3d 648.  In December 2016, relator, Mahoning County Bar 
Association, charged him with violating several professional-conduct rules as a 
result of his conviction.  After a hearing, the Board of Professional Conduct found 
that Atway engaged in most of the charged misconduct and recommended that we 
suspend him for two years, with credit for time served under the interim felony 
suspension.  Neither party has objected to the board’s recommendation. 
{¶ 2} Upon our review of the record, we adopt the board’s findings of 
misconduct and agree that a two-year suspension is appropriate in this case.  
However, we decline to grant credit for time served under the interim felony 
suspension. 
Misconduct 
{¶ 3} This matter involves Atway’s 2012 representation of Charles Muth.  
In early 2012, state authorities investigated Muth for allegedly asking an associate 
to fire gunshots into what Muth believed was the home of Mohd Rawhneh.  During 
the state’s investigation of the shooting, police discovered a large marijuana-
growing operation in Muth’s home, which resulted in federal authorities 
commencing a separate investigation of him.  Atway agreed to represent Muth in 
the federal matter, and Atway’s law partner, Scott Cochran, agreed to represent 
Muth in the state court proceeding.1     
{¶ 4} By June 2012, Atway had negotiated a plea agreement in the federal 
matter.  At his disciplinary hearing, Atway testified that although he had negotiated 
                                                 
1 Relator separately charged Cochran with professional misconduct relating to his representation 
of Muth.  See __ Ohio St.3d __, 2018-Ohio-4, __ N.E.3d __.   
January Term, 2018 
 
3
Muth’s mandatory five-year prison term down to a six-month sentence, Muth 
requested that Atway find a way for him to avoid any time in prison.  Atway then 
approached the government’s attorney, who indicated that Muth could potentially 
avoid prison by proving that his life was threatened for cooperating with authorities 
or by providing incriminating evidence about either public corruption or a lawyer.  
At the time, Atway believed that the government’s attorney wanted Muth to 
cooperate against a local attorney who the government suspected was involved in 
Muth’s marijuana operation.  Atway relayed this information to his client. 
{¶ 5} According to Atway, Muth had also asked him to approach Rawhneh 
about entering into a monetary settlement with Muth, which Muth hoped would 
prevent Rawhneh from testifying against him at his sentencing hearings.  Atway 
testified that he had repeatedly told Muth that they could not prevent Rawhneh from 
appearing at Muth’s sentencing hearings but Muth had nonetheless requested that 
Atway attempt a settlement. 
{¶ 6} Unbeknownst to Atway, Muth had also contacted the FBI and alleged 
that Atway and Rawhneh were attempting to extort money from him.  As a result, 
the FBI began recording communications between Atway and Muth and, 
separately, Atway and Rawhneh.  According to Atway, the FBI recorded dozens of 
his communications with both his client and Rawhneh. 
{¶ 7} In November 2012, Atway learned that he was under FBI 
investigation, and in 2014, the federal government charged him with violating the 
Hobbs Act, obstruction of justice, making a false statement to law enforcement, and 
two other offenses.  Atway pled not guilty to all charges.  After a five-week trial in 
February and March 2015, the judge declared a mistrial due to juror misconduct.  
The judge later acquitted Atway on two counts, and the government indicated its 
intent to retry him on the remaining charges.  By October 2015, however, Atway 
and the government reached an agreement:  Atway would plead guilty to a new 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO 
 
4
charge of violating 18 U.S.C. 241, a class C felony, and the government would 
dismiss all charges in the original indictment. 
{¶ 8} Under 18 U.S.C. 241, persons are prohibited from conspiring with 
others to injure, oppress, threaten, or intimidate any person in the free exercise and 
enjoyment of a legal right.  Atway admitted that he had violated the statute by 
entering into a conspiracy to deprive Muth of his right to effective assistance of 
counsel.  Specifically, Atway admitted that he had lied to Muth about his 
interactions and communications with Rawhneh.  Atway also acknowledged that 
he made vulgar and disparaging comments in his communications with Rawhneh 
while discussing the potential settlement.  At his January 2016 sentencing, the judge 
fined Atway $2,000 and placed him on probation for three years, with four months 
under house arrest.  Atway paid the fine and served the house arrest, and in March 
2017, the court terminated Atway’s probation early for good behavior. 
{¶ 9} Based on Atway’s federal conviction, the parties stipulated and the 
board found that he had violated Prof.Cond.R. 4.4 (prohibiting a lawyer, while 
representing a client, from using means that have no substantial purpose other than 
to embarrass, harass, delay, or burden a third person), 8.4(b) (prohibiting a lawyer 
from committing an illegal act that reflects adversely on the lawyer’s honesty or 
trustworthiness), and 8.4(d) (prohibiting a lawyer from engaging in conduct that is 
prejudicial to the administration of justice). 
{¶ 10} We accept the stipulated findings of misconduct. 
Sanction 
{¶ 11} When imposing sanctions for attorney misconduct, we consider 
several relevant factors, including the ethical duties that the lawyer violated, the 
aggravating and mitigating factors listed in Gov.Bar R. V(13), and the sanctions 
imposed in similar cases. 
Aggravating and mitigating factors 
{¶ 12} The board did not find any aggravating factors in this case. 
January Term, 2018 
 
5
{¶ 13} In mitigation, the board found that Atway has no prior disciplinary 
record, he lacked a dishonest or selfish motive, he made full and free disclosures to 
relator and the board, and criminal sanctions have been imposed for his misconduct.  
See Gov.Bar R. V(13)(C)(1), (2), (4), and (6).  The board also determined that 
Atway submitted evidence demonstrating good character and an excellent 
reputation in the Youngstown legal community, noting that two Assistant United 
States Attorneys testified on Atway’s behalf in his criminal trial, even though their 
associates were prosecuting the case against Atway.  See Gov.Bar R. V(13)(C)(5).  
In addition, the board noted that Atway’s conduct did not harm Muth, who received 
only a one-month reduction in his prison sentence for cooperating with authorities 
against Atway.  The parties also stipulated—and the board agreed—that restitution 
should not be an issue in this proceeding, because Muth has filed a separate civil 
lawsuit against Atway. 
Applicable precedent 
{¶ 14} To support its recommended sanction, the board reviewed a number 
of cases involving attorneys whose misconduct resulted in felony convictions.  For 
example, the board cited Disciplinary Counsel v. Cohen, 142 Ohio St.3d 471, 2015-
Ohio-2020, 32 N.E.3d 455, in which an attorney representing a criminal defendant 
paid money to a prosecution witness and talked to the witness about traveling out 
of state.  The attorney later pled guilty to attempted tampering with evidence and 
attempted obstruction of justice, and we indefinitely suspended him, without credit 
for time served under his interim felony suspension. 
{¶ 15} The board also cited Disciplinary Counsel v. Doumbas, 149 Ohio 
St.3d 628, 2017-Ohio-550, 76 N.E.3d 1185, in which an attorney was found 
complicit in his associates’ efforts to bribe a client’s victims into supporting a more 
lenient sentence for the client.  Based on the attorney’s bribery conviction, we 
indefinitely suspended him but granted credit for time served under the interim 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO 
 
6
felony suspension, which we had imposed over three years before our final 
disciplinary order. 
{¶ 16} On the lower end of sanctions, the board reviewed Disciplinary 
Counsel v. Pappas, 141 Ohio St.3d 1, 2014-Ohio-3676, 21 N.E.3d 260, in which 
an attorney made multiple false statements—including to a court, a federal grand 
jury, and disciplinary authorities—in an attempt to protect a long-time friend.  After 
the attorney was convicted of a felony for lying to federal authorities, we suspended 
him for two years, with no credit for time served under his interim felony 
suspension.  The board also cited Disciplinary Counsel v. Mahin, 146 Ohio St.3d 
312, 2016-Ohio-3336, 55 N.E.3d 1108, in which an attorney misappropriated funds 
from his former law firm and was later convicted of fifth-degree-felony theft.  
Based on the parties’ consent-to-discipline agreement, we suspended him for two 
years, with the second year conditionally stayed, and granted him credit for time 
served under his felony suspension. 
{¶ 17} The board concluded that Atway’s misconduct—which it 
characterized as “essentially lying to his client”—was less egregious than the 
criminal conduct in the above-cited cases.  The board also described Atway’s 
behavior as “a one-time, out of character mistake” by a well-respected member of 
the local bar and found that his criminal conduct was the result of “highly unusual 
facts.”  Based on Atway’s testimony, the parties’ stipulations, and the mitigating 
evidence, the board ultimately recommended a two-year suspension, with credit for 
time served under Atway’s interim felony suspension. 
{¶ 18} We agree with the board that this case presents an unusual set of 
facts and that Atway’s conduct was less serious than the criminal conduct in some 
of the cases cited above.  We also agree that a two-year suspension is the 
appropriate sanction in this case, especially given the presence of several mitigating 
factors and the absence of any aggravating factors.  However, Atway pled guilty to 
a felony for entering into a conspiracy to deprive a client of his right to effective 
January Term, 2018 
 
7
assistance of counsel.  “Few infractions impugn the integrity of the legal profession 
more than an attorney’s criminal acts interfering with the fair administration of 
justice.”  Cohen, 142 Ohio St.3d 471, 2015-Ohio-471, 32 N.E.3d 455, ¶ 8.  Given 
the nature of Atway’s conviction, we find no compelling reason to grant credit for 
time served under the interim felony suspension. 
Conclusion 
{¶ 19} For the reasons explained above, Neal Ghaleb Atway is suspended 
from the practice of law in Ohio for two years, with no credit for time served under 
his interim suspension.  Costs are taxed to Atway. 
Judgment accordingly. 
O’CONNOR, C.J., and O’DONNELL, KENNEDY, and FISCHER, JJ., concur. 
FRENCH, O’NEILL, and DEWINE, JJ., dissent, and would grant credit for time 
served under interim suspension. 
_________________ 
David Comstock Jr. and J. Michael Thompson, Bar Counsel, for relator. 
John B. Juhasz; and Maro & Schoenike Co. and Lynn Maro, for respondent. 
_________________