Title: Lake Cty. Bar Assn. v. Mismas

State: ohio

Issuer: Ohio Supreme Court

Document:

[Until this opinion appears in the Ohio Official Reports advance sheets, it may be cited as 
Lake Cty. Bar Assn. v. Mismas, Slip Opinion No. 2014-Ohio-2483.] 
 
 
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. 2014-OHIO-2483 
LAKE COUNTY BAR ASSOCIATION v. MISMAS. 
[Until this opinion appears in the Ohio Official Reports advance sheets,  
it may be cited as Lake Cty. Bar Assn. v. Mismas,  
Slip Opinion No. 2014-Ohio-2483.] 
Attorney discipline—Conduct adversely reflecting on fitness to practice law—
One-year suspension, partially stayed. 
(No. 2013-1248—Submitted October 9, 2013—Decided June 12, 2014.) 
ON CERTIFIED REPORT by the Board of Commissioners on Grievances and 
Discipline of the Supreme Court, No. 12-049. 
____________________ 
Per Curiam. 
{¶ 1} Respondent, John Daniel Mismas of Willoughby, Ohio, Attorney 
Registration No. 77434, was admitted to the practice of law in Ohio in 2004. 
{¶ 2} On June 11, 2012, a probable-cause panel of the Board of 
Commissioners on Grievances and Discipline certified a complaint filed by 
relator, Lake County Bar Association, to the board.  Having considered the 
parties’ stipulated facts and the hearing testimony of Mismas and five other 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO 
2 
 
witnesses, a panel of the board found that Mismas had engaged in conduct that 
adversely reflected on his fitness to practice law by sending inappropriate, 
sexually explicit text messages to a third-year law student who had interviewed 
for, and later accepted, a position as a law clerk at his law firm.  The panel 
recommended that Mismas be publicly reprimanded for this conduct. 
{¶ 3} The board adopted the panel’s findings of fact and misconduct and, 
despite a modification to the aggravating and mitigating factors found by the 
panel, adopted its recommendation that Mismas be publicly reprimanded for his 
misconduct.  Having independently reviewed the record, however, we find that 
Mismas did not just send sexually explicit text messages to a law student he 
sought to employ—he abused the power and prestige of our profession to demand 
sexual favors from her as a condition of her employment.  Therefore, we conclude 
that a harsher sanction is warranted and suspend Mismas from the practice of law 
for one year, with the final six months stayed on conditions. 
Misconduct 
{¶ 4} In November 2011, Mismas contacted Professor J. Dean Carro at 
the University of Akron School of Law, seeking to hire a student law clerk.  Three 
students responded to his posting.  He contacted Ms. C, a female student at the 
school and scheduled a face-to-face interview for December 9, 2011.  From the 
evening of the interview through December 28, 2011, Mismas and Ms. C 
exchanged numerous text messages. 
{¶ 5} The board found that some of the text messages that Mismas sent 
to Ms. C on December 9 and 10 were sexually explicit and inappropriate.  
Notwithstanding the inappropriate content of those messages, Ms. C accepted 
employment with Mismas’s firm on December 11, 2011.  On December 22, 2011, 
Mismas sent Ms. C a text inviting her to travel with him to Washington, D.C. on 
business.  After she informed him that she had a prior commitment and would not 
January Term, 2014 
3 
 
travel with him, Mismas sent her a text stating, “That’s strike 1 for you.  3 strikes 
and you are out.”  Ms. C resigned her employment the next day. 
{¶ 6} In January 2012, Professor Carro asked Ms. C about her 
employment with Mismas and learned of her resignation.  When the professor 
asked for additional information, Ms. C stated that Mismas had acted 
inappropriately toward her and that she felt uncomfortable continuing in his 
employ.  Shortly thereafter, Professor Carro filed a grievance with relator. 
{¶ 7} The parties stipulated, and the panel and board found, that 
Mismas’s conduct toward Ms. C violated Prof.Cond.R. 8.4(h) (prohibiting a 
lawyer from engaging in conduct that adversely reflects on the lawyer’s fitness to 
practice law). 
{¶ 8} In order to fully recognize the gravity of the misconduct in this 
case, however, it is necessary to consider the content of the text messages that 
Mismas sent to this third-year law student who sought employment as a law clerk 
in his firm—facts that the parties do not set forth in their stipulations and neither 
the panel nor the board set forth in its report.  Although the conversation began 
with a general discussion of Ms. C’s commitment to Mismas’s primary area of 
practice—asbestos litigation—and the psychological toll that the clients’ 
circumstances can have on those who assist them, it soon took an inappropriate 
turn. 
{¶ 9} Mismas advised Ms. C that she would “need to take a few 
beatings” before she could learn to give one.  He rephrased this statement in 
sexual terms and then asked Ms. C if she had ever engaged in the type of sex act 
he had referred to.  Ms. C told him to stop, stating that they were only speaking 
metaphorically, but Mismas insisted that he was serious.  Ms. C advised him that 
his question was inappropriate and that she would not answer it.  Mismas then 
told her that there needed to be some level of trust between them saying, “[I]f you 
can’t trust me with personal issues then that’s a problem.”  When she continued to 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO 
4 
 
refuse to answer, he texted, “Just was checking how offended you would get.  
This job is not for the weak.”  He indicated that honesty and loyalty were 
important qualities to him. 
{¶ 10} A little before midnight, Mismas began to quiz Ms. C about an 
arbitration agreement that he had given her to review.  The conversation then 
turned to how Mismas could ensure that Ms. C would be loyal to him.  He told 
her, “I have an idea but your [sic] not going to like it,” and stated that she would 
“bolt” if he said it.  After she responded that he had already taken the 
conversation pretty far and that she had not bolted, he suggested that she perform 
a sex act for him.  Ms. C flatly rejected Mismas’s suggestion, but he continued to 
press the issue.  When she told him to stop and urged him to admit that he was 
joking, he repeatedly refused and insisted that her employment depended on her 
compliance, telling her, “If you show up at 11 you know what’s expected.”  He 
further stated, “So its your choice.  Ok.  I’ll be there at 11.  If you show up great.  
You know what you gptt.  GoTta do [sic].  If not Good luck to you.”  At 
approximately 1:30 a.m., Ms. C gave Mismas one last chance to say that he had 
just been messing around, but he replied, “Nope.  Not kidding.” 
{¶ 11} At 9:56 that morning, Mismas sent Ms. C another text, suddenly 
proclaiming that their prior exchange had been a joke after all.  When Ms. C 
expressed her doubts, he apologized and told her that it would not happen again.  
But at the panel hearing, Ms. C testified that she had believed, and continued to 
believe, that he was serious about his proposition. 
{¶ 12} The following week, Mismas suggested that Ms. C join him at his 
next out-of-town deposition.  And just one week after making that suggestion, he 
invited her to join him on an overnight trip to Washington, D.C.  When Ms. C 
demurred, stating that she had already accepted an invitation to a judicial 
function, Mismas belittled her for her rejection and pressured her to go by 
suggesting that her refusal would have adverse consequences on her employment, 
January Term, 2014 
5 
 
texting her, “That’s strike 1 for you.  3 strikes and you are out”.  The following 
day, Ms. C resigned her employment. 
{¶ 13} On these facts, we agree that Mismas engaged in conduct that 
adversely reflects on his fitness to practice law in violation of Prof.Cond.R. 
8.4(h). 
Sanction 
{¶ 14} When imposing sanctions for attorney misconduct, we consider 
relevant factors, including the ethical duties that the lawyer violated and the 
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). 
{¶ 15} The parties stipulated and the panel found that six of the mitigating 
factors set forth in BCGD Proc.Reg. 10(B)(2) were present, including (a) the 
absence of a prior disciplinary record, (b) the absence of a selfish or dishonest 
motive, (c) Mismas’s timely good-faith effort to rectify the consequences of his 
misconduct, (d) his full and free disclosure to the board and cooperative attitude 
toward the proceedings, (e) his good character and reputation apart from the 
conduct at issue in this case, as demonstrated by the testimony of three character 
witnesses and 19 character letters from attorneys, paralegals, court reporters, 
clients, a judge, and others who know him, and (g) his alcohol dependency. 
{¶ 16} Mismas testified that in February 2012, he realized he was an 
alcoholic.  He argued that the inappropriate text messages he sent to Ms. C were 
meant in jest.  He claimed that he had been drinking heavily at the time he sent 
the sexually explicit texts and that he had no memory of actually sending them.  
Viewing the texts in retrospect, he said that he was embarrassed by his conduct 
and referred to it as “disgusting and grotesque.”  The panel and board found that 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO 
6 
 
he had shown genuine remorse for his actions and appeared to be taking all 
necessary steps to avoid engaging in similar misconduct in the future. 
{¶ 17} Marilyn Wise, a licensed independent chemical-dependency 
counselor, testified that Mismas began treatment with her in March 2012.  She 
stated that he had successfully completed an approved treatment program, that he 
continued to attend Alcoholics Anonymous meetings regularly, and that he 
remained in counseling with her.  Although his chemical dependency contributed 
to his misconduct, she believes that he has “an excellent prognosis of continued 
sobriety and healthy mental status and should continue unimpeded, the work of 
the exceptional attorney that he is.”  Therefore, the panel and board found that 
Mismas’s alcohol dependency qualified as a mitigating factor pursuant to BCGD 
Proc.Reg. 10(B)(2)(g).1 
{¶ 18} The only aggravating factor found by the panel was the 
vulnerability of and resulting harm to the victim of the misconduct.  BCGD 
Proc.Reg. 10(B)(1)(h).  The board, however, rejected the panel’s finding that the 
absence of a dishonest or selfish motive was a mitigating factor and instead found 
that Mismas had acted with a dishonest or selfish motive that qualified as an 
additional aggravating factor.  BCGD Proc.Reg. 10(B)(1)(b). 
{¶ 19} In considering the sanctions imposed for comparable misconduct, 
the panel and board considered Disciplinary Counsel v. Detweiler, 135 Ohio St.3d 
447, 2013-Ohio-1747, 989 N.E.2d 41.  Detweiler had sent a number of 
inappropriate texts of a sexual nature to a divorce client over a period of several 
months.  On at least two occasions, he indicated that he wanted to engage in 
                                                 
1 For a chemical dependency or mental disability to qualify as a mitigating factor pursuant to 
BCGD Proc.Reg. 10(B)(2)(g)(i) through (iv), it must be supported by all of the following: (1) the 
diagnosis of a qualified healthcare professional, (2) a determination that the chemical dependency 
or mental disability contributed to cause the misconduct, (3) certification of successful completion 
of an approved chemical-dependency treatment program or a sustained period of successful 
treatment of the mental disability, and (4) a prognosis from a qualified healthcare professional that 
the attorney will be able to return, under specified conditions if necessary, to the competent, 
ethical, and professional practice of law. 
January Term, 2014 
7 
 
sexual relations with his client, and when she ignored his advances, he sent her a 
nude picture of himself in a state of sexual arousal.  Id. at ¶ 7.  We found that 
Detweiler’s conduct violated Prof.Cond.R. 1.7(a)(2) (prohibiting representation if 
a lawyer’s personal interests will materially limit his ability to carry out 
appropriate action for the client), 1.8(j) (prohibiting a lawyer from soliciting or 
engaging in sexual activity with a client unless a consensual sexual relationship 
existed prior to the client-lawyer relationship), and 8.4(h).  Id. at ¶ 9-10.  In 
imposing a one-year actual suspension from the practice of law, we found that 
Detweiler harmed a vulnerable client, acted with a selfish motive, and engaged in 
a pattern of misconduct that involved a previous sexual relationship with another 
client.  Id. at ¶ 2, 12, and 20. 
{¶ 20} Contrasting the facts of this case to those of Detweiler, the board 
noted that Ms. C was not a client of Mismas and that he had not been previously 
sanctioned for similar misconduct as Detweiler had.  Citing the presence of 
multiple mitigating factors, and only one or two aggravating factors, the panel and 
board recommended that we adopt the parties’ stipulated sanction of a public 
reprimand.  We reject this recommendation. 
{¶ 21} It is true that Mismas did not direct his inappropriate sexual 
overtures toward a vulnerable client as Detweiler did or engage in inherently 
dangerous conduct that could place the public at risk of immediate physical harm 
(like driving under the influence of alcohol).  But he did engage in undignified 
and unprofessional conduct by targeting an aspirant to the profession for sexual 
harassment. 
{¶ 22} Legal clerkships play an important role in developing the practical 
skills necessary for law students to become competent, ethical, and productive 
members of the legal profession.  Often, the skills, professional relationships, and 
reputations that students develop in these entry-level positions open the doors to 
their first full-time legal employment once they graduate and pass the bar exam.  
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO 
8 
 
These first jobs can set the course for a new attorney’s entire legal career.  
Attorneys who hire law students serve not only as employers but also as teachers, 
mentors, and role models for the next generation of our esteemed profession.  To 
that end, we expect that attorneys will conduct themselves with a level of dignity 
and decorum befitting these professional relationships. 
{¶ 23} Unwelcome sexual advances are unacceptable in the context of any 
employment, but they are particularly egregious when they are made by attorneys 
with the power to hire, supervise, and fire the recipient of those advances.  Here, 
Mismas not only suggested that Ms. C perform sexual favors for him, but he also 
indicated that her continued employment depended on her compliance with his 
demands and repeatedly insisted that he was not joking.  And even after being 
rebuffed, he continued to exert his leverage over Ms. C. by pressuring her to 
travel out of state—and away from her support system—with him.  When an 
attorney engages in sexually inappropriate conduct of this nature, it causes harm 
not only the individual to whom the conduct is directed but also to the dignity and 
reputation of the profession as a whole.  Thus, we conclude that Mismas’s 
conduct is more serious than “simply operating a cellphone when under the 
influence,” as his counsel suggests, or sending sexually explicit and inappropriate 
text messages, as the board found. 
{¶ 24} Moreover, we reject the parties’ stipulation and the board’s finding 
that Mismas made a timely good-faith effort to rectify the consequences of his 
misconduct.  BCGD Proc.Reg 10(B)(2)(c) provides that a respondent’s “timely 
good faith effort to make restitution or rectify consequences of misconduct” may 
be considered in favor of recommending a less severe sanction.  While the record 
contains substantial evidence of the efforts that Mismas has taken to rectify his 
alcoholism, his alcohol dependency is a contributing cause rather than the 
consequence of his misconduct.  And here, the only evidence that Mismas’s 
efforts to rectify the consequences of his actions toward Ms. C consists of several 
January Term, 2014 
9 
 
texts that he sent to her following his request for sexual favors—one stating that 
he was kidding, several others stating that he was sorry and that the conduct 
would not happen again, and another acknowledging that his conduct was 
unprofessional. 
{¶ 25} But Ms. C testified that when she resigned her employment, 
Mismas became hostile, put her down for being naïve, and threatened to contact 
her professors to tell them what a stupid decision she had made.  His brief 
apology to her at the panel hearing and his efforts to have her testimony placed 
under seal to protect her from future harm, although appropriate, do little to 
meliorate Ms. C’s anxiety, embarrassment, frustration, disappointment, and fear 
of harm to her professional reputation. 
{¶ 26} Based on the foregoing, we conclude that more than a public 
reprimand is necessary to protect the public from future misconduct.  
Accordingly, John Daniel Mismas is suspended from the practice of law in Ohio 
for one year, with the last six months stayed on the conditions that he engage in 
no further misconduct and continue to comply with all recommendations of his 
treating medical and psychological professionals.  Costs are taxed to Mismas. 
Judgment accordingly. 
O’CONNOR, C.J., and PFEIFER, O’DONNELL, LANZINGER, KENNEDY, 
FRENCH, and O’NEILL, JJ., concur. 
____________________ 
James P. Koerner, for relator. 
Charles J. Kettlewell, for respondent. 
_________________________