Title: Trumbull Cty. Bar Assn. v. Ohlin

State: ohio

Issuer: Ohio Supreme Court

Document:

[Until this opinion appears in the Ohio Official Reports advance sheets, it may be cited as 
Trumbull Cty. Bar Assn. v. Ohlin, Slip Opinion No. 2012-Ohio-4565.] 
 
 
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. 2012-OHIO-4565 
TRUMBULL COUNTY BAR ASSOCIATION v. OHLIN. 
[Until this opinion appears in the Ohio Official Reports advance sheets,  
it may be cited as Trumbull Cty. Bar Assn. v. Ohlin,  
Slip Opinion No. 2012-Ohio-4565.] 
Attorneys—Misconduct—Failure to participate in disciplinary process—Motion 
to supplement the record—Exceptional circumstances—Presentation of 
mitigating evidence—Remand. 
(No. 2012-0659—Submitted August 22, 2012—Decided October 9, 2012.) 
ON CERTIFIED REPORT by the Board of Commissioners on Grievances and 
Discipline of the Supreme Court, No. 11-026. 
__________________ 
Per Curiam. 
{¶ 1} Respondent, Joseph David Ohlin of Warren, Ohio, Attorney 
Registration No. 0031532, was admitted to the practice of law in Ohio in 1985.  
On November 3, 2009, we suspended Ohlin for his failure to register as an 
attorney for the 2009-2011 biennium and for failing to comply with the 
continuing legal education requirements of Gov.Bar R. X.  In re Attorney 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO 
2 
 
Registration Suspension of Ohlin, 123 Ohio St.3d 1475, 2009-Ohio-5786, 915 
N.E.2d 1256; In re Continuing Legal Edn. Suspension of Ohlin, 123 Ohio St.3d 
1475, 2009-Ohio-5786, 915 N.E.2d 1256.1  And on August 24, 2010, in a default 
proceeding, we indefinitely suspended him for his neglect of an entrusted legal 
matter, failure to promptly deliver funds to which a client was entitled, and failure 
to cooperate in the resulting disciplinary investigation.  Disciplinary Counsel v. 
Ohlin, 126 Ohio St.3d 384, 2010-Ohio-3826, 934 N.E.2d 323.  These suspensions 
remain in effect. 
{¶ 2} On April 11, 2011, relator, Trumbull County Bar Association, filed 
a six-count complaint alleging that Ohlin had engaged in similar misconduct with 
respect to six additional client matters and had failed to cooperate in the resulting 
disciplinary investigations.  Ohlin did not answer the complaint, and relator 
moved for default.  A master commissioner appointed by the Board of 
Commissioners on Grievances and Discipline found that Ohlin was in default and 
that he had committed most of the charged misconduct; citing the presence of 
significant aggravating factors, the master commissioner recommended that Ohlin 
be permanently disbarred.  The board adopted the master commissioner’s findings 
of fact, conclusions of law, and recommended sanction. 
{¶ 3} In response to our order to show cause, Ohlin filed objections to 
the board’s report and moved to remand this cause to the board so that he can 
present exculpatory and mitigating evidence.  For the reasons that follow, we 
grant Ohlin’s motion to remand this cause to the board, but we limit the scope of 
the remand to the presentation and consideration of mitigation evidence. 
                                                 
1 Pursuant to Gov.Bar R. X(5)(C), however, a sanction imposed for failure to comply with the 
Continuing Legal Education requirements of Gov.Bar R. X shall not be considered in the 
imposition of a sanction for attorney misconduct.   
January Term, 2012 
3 
 
{¶ 4} We grant remands to supplement the record in attorney-
disciplinary matters “only under the most exceptional circumstances.”  Dayton 
Bar Assn. v. Stephan, 108 Ohio St.3d 327, 2006-Ohio-1063, 843 N.E.2d 771, ¶ 5. 
{¶ 5} In Butler Cty. Bar Assn. v. Portman, 121 Ohio St.3d 518, 2009-
Ohio-1705, 905 N.E.2d 1203, the board had adopted a master commissioner’s 
report granting the relator’s motion for default, making findings of misconduct 
with respect to all six counts of the complaint, and recommending that Portman be 
permanently disbarred.  Id. at ¶ 4.  After the board filed its report with this court, 
Portman moved to supplement the record with evidence of a claimed mental 
disability and restitution.  We granted the motion and remanded the case to the 
board for consideration of the evidence Portman had proffered in mitigation and, 
if appropriate, a mental health evaluation.  Id. at ¶ 5; see also Butler Cty. Bar 
Assn. v. Portman, 116 Ohio St.3d 1450, 2007-Ohio-6842, 878 N.E.2d 28. 
{¶ 6} On remand, the board found that Portman’s absence of a prior 
disciplinary record, payment of restitution, acknowledgment of the wrongful 
nature of his conduct, and cooperation in the disciplinary process following the 
remand, as well as his qualifying mental disability, see BCGD Proc.Reg. 
10(B)(2)(a), (d), and (g), were mitigating factors that weighed in favor of a lesser 
sanction.  Portman, 121 Ohio St.3d 518, 2009-Ohio-1705, 905 N.E.2d 1203, ¶ 26-
27.  Thus, the board modified its recommended sanction from permanent 
disbarment to indefinite suspension.  Id. at ¶ 32-33.  We adopted the board’s 
revised recommendation but modified it to afford Portman credit for his interim 
suspension and to place certain conditions upon any future reinstatement.  Id. at 
¶ 35-37. 
{¶ 7} Since deciding Portman, we have granted motions to remand for 
the introduction and consideration of mitigating evidence in a small, but growing, 
number of cases.  See, e.g., Cleveland Metro. Bar Assn. v. Pryatel, 131 Ohio St.3d 
1404, 2012-Ohio-79, 959 N.E.2d 537; Disciplinary Counsel v. Eynon, 130 Ohio 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO 
4 
 
St.3d 1433, 2011-Ohio-5879, 957 N.E.2d 38; Mahoning Cty. Bar Assn. v. Vivo, 
128 Ohio St.3d 1452, 2011-Ohio-1750, 944 N.E.2d 1177; Disciplinary Counsel v. 
Johnson, 128 Ohio St.3d 1404, 2011-Ohio-807, 941 N.E.2d 1205; and Butler Cty. 
Bar Assn. v. Minamyer, 124 Ohio St.3d 1528, 2010-Ohio-1302, 923 N.E.2d 1158. 
{¶ 8} In Vivo, the relator moved the court to remand the case to the board 
to determine whether the respondent suffered from a medical condition that led to 
his failure to respond to the allegations against him.  In Minamyer, the respondent 
submitted a response to our show-cause order and some medical records to 
document his claims that a traumatic brain injury, depression, and post-traumatic 
stress disorder contributed to his misconduct and affected his ability to respond to 
the relator’s investigation.  And in the remaining cases, the respondents submitted 
some evidence to demonstrate that their misconduct and failure to respond to their 
disciplinary investigations was due, at least in part, to their mental health 
conditions.  We remanded each of these cases but limited the scope of the board’s 
review to the consideration of mitigation evidence. 
{¶ 9} In Ohlin’s motion to supplement the record and remand this 
proceeding to the board, he states that he regrets his failure to participate in the 
disciplinary process and that he wants the opportunity to present evidence “that 
could persuade the Board to not impose the ultimate sanction of permanent 
disbarment.”  Attached to his motion is an affidavit in which he avers that he has 
been suffering from depression as a result of the termination of his marriage and 
the relocation of his former wife and children to South Carolina.  Although his 
depression has been treated by a psychiatrist and his family practitioner, he states 
that it has interfered with his ability to practice law and that it has prevented him 
from participating in this disciplinary action until now.  Ohlin acknowledges that 
in the past, he entered into a contract with the Ohio Lawyers Assistance Program 
but failed to complete it.  Now he expresses a desire to reenroll in the program 
January Term, 2012 
5 
 
and comply with all treatment recommendations in hopes that he will one day be 
able to resume the competent, ethical, and professional practice of law. 
{¶ 10} Based upon the specific circumstances of this case, we conclude 
that Ohlin’s affidavit is sufficient to establish the exceptional circumstances 
warranting a remand solely for the consideration of mitigation evidence.  We note 
that Ohlin is currently serving an indefinite suspension; thus, there is no risk of 
additional harm to the public during the pendency of a remand. 
{¶ 11} However, when asking this court to consider remanding a 
disciplinary action for a respondent to provide mitigating evidence of a diagnosis 
of mental disability, a statement from a mental health treatment professional 
should be provided, setting forth, at a minimum, the respondent’s diagnosis and 
treatment regimen. 
{¶ 12} Accordingly, we grant Ohlin’s motion in part, and we remand this 
cause to the board for the submission and consideration of mitigation evidence. 
Judgment accordingly. 
O’CONNOR, C.J., and PFEIFER, LUNDBERG STRATTON, LANZINGER, CUPP, 
and MCGEE BROWN, JJ., concur. 
O’DONNELL, J., dissents and would permanently disbar respondent from 
the practice of law in Ohio. 
__________________ 
Randil J. Rudloff and Edward L. Lavelle, for relator. 
Joseph Terrence Dull, for respondent. 
______________________