Title: Disciplinary Counsel v. Domis

State: ohio

Issuer: Ohio Supreme Court

Document:

[Until this opinion appears in the Ohio Official Reports advance sheets, it may be cited as 
Disciplinary Counsel v. Domis, Slip Opinion No. 2019-Ohio-955.] 
 
 
 
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. 2019-OHIO-955 
DISCIPLINARY COUNSEL v. DOMIS. 
[Until this opinion appears in the Ohio Official Reports advance sheets, it 
may be cited as Disciplinary Counsel v. Domis, Slip Opinion No.  
2019-Ohio-955.] 
Attorneys—Misconduct—Violations of the Rules of Professional Conduct, 
including failing to provide competent representation to a client and 
withdrawing from representation in a proceeding without leave of court—
Public reprimand. 
(No. 2018-1753—Submitted January 9, 2019—Decided March 21, 2019.) 
ON CERTIFIED REPORT by the Board of Professional Conduct of the Supreme 
Court, No. 2018-041. 
__________________ 
Per Curiam. 
{¶ 1} Respondent, Christian Brian Domis, of Cincinnati, Ohio, Attorney 
Registration No. 0069905, was admitted to the practice of law in Ohio in November 
1998. 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO 
 
2
{¶ 2} In a formal complaint certified to the Board of Professional Conduct 
on July 31, 2018, relator, disciplinary counsel, charged Domis with several ethical 
violations relating to the representation of a single client.  A panel of the board 
considered the cause on the parties’ consent-to-discipline agreement.  See Gov.Bar 
R. V(16). 
{¶ 3} In their consent agreement, the parties stipulated that Domis was 
assigned to represent Joel J. Reissig Jr. by the National Freedom Project (“NFP”) a 
few days before Reissig’s arraignment.  Reissig had signed an agreement with NFP 
to provide legal counsel to defend him in a criminal proceeding in Hardin County 
Common Pleas Court.  Reissig paid NFP $3,500, but Domis did not receive any 
money from either Reissig or NFP for his representation. 
{¶ 4} On October 18, 2017, the day of Reissig’s arraignment, Domis was 
late to court.  When Domis arrived, the judge told him that he could not appear on 
Reissig’s behalf because the Supreme Court of Ohio’s website indicated that he 
was not currently registered as an attorney.  The judge continued the arraignment 
for six days.  In the interim, Domis contacted the Supreme Court’s Office of 
Attorney Services and was advised that he owed a $50 late-registration fee for the 
2017/2019 biennium, because he had paid his attorney-registration fee after the 
September 1 deadline established by Gov.Bar R. VI(2).  Domis promptly paid the 
$50 fee before the expiration of the 60-day grace period provided by Gov.Bar R. 
VI(10)(A) and appeared at Reissig’s arraignment.  The court scheduled a status 
conference for December 12, 2017, a pretrial conference for January 4, 2018, and 
a jury trial to commence on February 8. 
{¶ 5} Domis did not appear at the December 12, 2017 status conference.  
Reissig told the court that he had spoken with Domis by telephone on December 
11.  During that conversation, Domis had informed Reissig that he had moved out 
of state, would not be appearing at the status conference, and was unable to continue 
to represent Reissig.  However, Domis never notified the court or the prosecutor of 
January Term, 2019 
 
3
his intention to withdraw from Reissig’s case.  The court granted a continuance to 
permit Reissig to retain new counsel, and the court filed a grievance against Domis. 
{¶ 6} Relator sent a letter of inquiry by certified mail to Domis on February 
9, 2018.  In his response, Domis acknowledged that NFP had assigned him to 
represent Reissig but asserted that he had received no payment for his 
representation.  Although Domis stated that he had informed Reissig and NFP that 
he had moved to California and would not attend the December 2017 status 
conference, he confirmed that he had not notified either the prosecutor or the court.  
He stated that upon learning that there was a problem with the payment of his 
attorney-registration fee, he took immediate action to rectify the issue.  He also 
acknowledged that he had failed to inform Reissig that he did not carry 
professional-liability insurance. 
{¶ 7} The parties stipulated that Domis’s conduct violated Prof.Cond.R. 1.1 
(requiring a lawyer to provide competent representation to a client), 1.3 (requiring 
a lawyer to act with reasonable diligence in representing a client), 1.4(c) (requiring 
a lawyer to inform the client if the lawyer does not maintain professional-liability 
insurance), 1.16(c) (prohibiting a lawyer from withdrawing from representation in 
a proceeding without leave of court if the rules of the tribunal so require), 1.16(d) 
(requiring a lawyer withdrawing from representation to take steps reasonably 
practicable to protect a client’s interest), 3.4(c) (prohibiting a lawyer from 
knowingly disobeying an obligation under the rules of a tribunal), and 8.4(d) 
(prohibiting a lawyer from engaging in conduct that is prejudicial to the 
administration of justice).  The parties stipulated to the dismissal of one additional 
alleged violation. 
{¶ 8} The parties stipulated that just two aggravating factors are present—
that Domis had prior discipline in the form of an administrative “suspension” that 
purportedly arose from the $50 late-registration fee assessed by the Office of 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO 
 
4
Attorney Services for the 2017/2019 biennium1 and that he committed multiple 
offenses.  See Gov.Bar R. V(13)(B)(1) and (4). 
{¶ 9} Stipulated mitigating factors include the absence of a dishonest or 
selfish motive, Domis’s full and free disclosure to the board and cooperative 
attitude toward the disciplinary proceedings, his acknowledgement of the wrongful 
nature of his misconduct, and the absence of any harm to his client.  See Gov.Bar 
R. V(13)(C)(2) and (4).  As the board additionally noted in its summary of the 
aggravating and mitigating factors, Domis’s misconduct involved only one client 
and occurred over a brief period of time. 
{¶ 10} The board recommends that we adopt the parties’ consent-to-
discipline agreement and publicly reprimand Domis.  The panel and the board 
considered a number of cases in which we have sanctioned attorneys for similar 
rule violations.  See, e.g., Disciplinary Counsel v. Mickens, 151 Ohio St.3d 302, 
2016-Ohio-8022, 88 N.E.3d 920; Lorain Cty. Bar Assn. v. Nelson, 144 Ohio St.3d 
414, 2015-Ohio-4337, 44 N.E.3d 268; and Lorain Cty. Bar Assn. v. Godles, 128 
Ohio St.3d 279, 2010-Ohio-6274, 943 N.E.2d 988.  We find Nelson and Godles to 
be most instructive. 
{¶ 11} We publicly reprimanded Nelson for neglecting a client’s case, 
failing to communicate with the client, failing to properly notify the client that he 
lacked malpractice insurance, and failing to cooperate in the ensuing disciplinary 
investigation.  We also publicly reprimanded Godles for failing to communicate 
with a client and failing to advise the client that he lacked malpractice insurance.  
Neither Nelson nor Godles had prior discipline.  In contrast, Domis stipulated that 
an administrative late fee that did not result in his suspension from the practice of 
law, see Gov.Bar R. V(10)(A) and (B), nonetheless qualified as prior discipline that 
                                                          
 
1.  Contrary to the parties’ stipulation, Domis was not suspended from the practice of law for failure 
to timely comply with attorney-registration requirements.  For purposes of this consent-to-discipline 
agreement, however, we accept the parties’ stipulation that Domis’s late registration is an 
aggravating factor. 
January Term, 2019 
 
5
warranted some aggravating effect.  But the clients of both Nelson and Godles 
suffered harm and Domis did not cause any harm to his client. 
{¶ 12} Upon our review of the record, we agree that Domis’s conduct 
violated Prof.Cond.R. 1.1, 1.3, 1.4(c), 1.16(c), 1.16(d), 3.4(c), and 8.4(d) and that 
a public reprimand is the appropriate sanction for that misconduct.  We therefore 
adopt the parties’ consent-to-discipline agreement. 
{¶ 13} Accordingly, Christian Brian Domis is hereby publicly reprimanded.  
Costs are taxed to Domis. 
Judgment accordingly. 
O’CONNOR, C.J., and KENNEDY, FRENCH, FISCHER, DEWINE, DONNELLY, 
and STEWART, JJ., concur. 
_________________ 
Scott J. Drexel, Disciplinary Counsel, for relator. 
Christian Brian Domis, pro se. 
_________________