Title: Disciplinary Counsel v. O'Malley

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. O’Malley, Slip Opinion No. 2010-Ohio-3802.] 
 
 
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-3802 
DISCIPLINARY COUNSEL v. O’MALLEY. 
[Until this opinion appears in the Ohio Official Reports advance sheets, it 
may be cited as Disciplinary Counsel v. O’Malley,  
Slip Opinion No. 2010-Ohio-3802.] 
Attorneys at law — Misconduct — Conduct adversely reflecting on fitness to 
practice — Federal felony conviction — Two-year suspension. 
(No. 2009-1444 — Submitted March 31, 2010 — Decided August 24, 2010.) 
ON CERTIFIED REPORT by the Board of Commissioners on Grievances and 
Discipline of the Supreme Court, No. 09-001. 
__________________ 
Per Curiam. 
{¶ 1} Respondent, Patrick Joseph O’Malley of Chagrin Falls, Ohio, 
Attorney Registration No. 0058659, was admitted to the practice of law in Ohio in 
1992.  On December 4, 2008, following his conviction and sentencing on a single 
count of transportation and importation of obscene matters, we imposed an 
interim felony suspension of respondent’s license pursuant to Gov.Bar R. 
V(5)(A)(4).  In re O'Malley, 120 Ohio St.3d 1426, 2008-Ohio-6274, 897 N.E.2d 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO 
2 
 
658. Thereafter, relator, Disciplinary Counsel, filed a complaint charging 
respondent with a single violation of DR 1-102(A)(6).  In September 2009, we 
rejected the report of the Board of Commissioners on Grievances and Discipline 
recommending that we adopt the parties’ consent-to-discipline agreement and 
impose a 12-month suspension, with credit for the interim felony suspension.  122 
Ohio St.3d 1525, 2009-Ohio-4866, 913 N.E.2d 460.  Based upon his conduct in 
downloading obscene photographs and stories from the Internet to personal 
computers in his home, the Board of Commissioners on Grievances and 
Discipline again recommends that we suspend respondent from practice for 12 
months and credit him for time served under the interim suspension of his license. 
{¶ 2} We accept the board’s factual findings and its conclusion that 
respondent’s conduct violated the ethical standards incumbent upon Ohio lawyers.  
We conclude, however, that the appropriate sanction for respondent’s misconduct 
is a two-year suspension from the practice of law in Ohio, with credit for time 
served under the interim suspension; however, respondent may not apply for 
reinstatement until he has completed his term of federal supervised release. 
Misconduct 
{¶ 3} Respondent became the recorder of Cuyahoga County in 1997 and 
retained the office through elections in 1998, 2000, and 2004.  After winning the 
primary race for the recorder’s office in 2008, he agreed to plead guilty to a single 
count of transportation and importation of obscene matters, which alleged that he 
did “knowingly use an interactive computer service for the carriage in interstate 
and foreign commerce of numerous obscene, lewd, lascivious, and filthy pictures, 
writings and other matters of indecent character,” in violation of Section 1462(a), 
Title 18, U.S.Code.  The information, filed in United States District Court for the 
Northern District of Ohio, Eastern Division, two days after respondent executed 
the plea agreement, alleged that the conduct giving rise to the charge occurred 
from February 18, 1998, through November 16, 2004. 
January Term, 2010 
3 
 
{¶ 4} On October 3, 2008, respondent was sentenced to 15 months in 
prison and three years of supervised release.  He also resigned his elected office.  
The parties have stipulated to respondent’s conviction and sentence and have 
agreed that his conduct violated DR 1-102(A)(6).  They have further stipulated 
that the appropriate sanction for this misconduct is a 12-month suspension from 
the practice of law with credit for the time served under the interim felony 
suspension. 
{¶ 5} After we rejected the parties’ consent-to-discipline agreement 
proposing the same sanction, a panel of the board conducted a hearing and heard 
testimony from respondent and one character witness.  The panel also considered 
the parties’ stipulated exhibits, including the information, plea agreement, and 
judgment in respondent’s criminal case, as well as 21 letters attesting to 
respondent’s good character. 
{¶ 6} In addition to accepting the parties’ stipulations, the board found 
that the obscene materials that were the subject of respondent’s criminal 
conviction were stored at his home on personal computers that he owned.  
Respondent testified that the obscene materials were erotic photographs of adults 
and erotic stories that he and his wife had viewed in the privacy of their home.  
He claimed that his former wife broke into his home, seized the computers, and 
turned them over to the FBI to gain an advantage over him in their then pending 
divorce and child-custody litigation. 
{¶ 7} Based upon the agreed stipulations and the testimony presented at 
the hearing, the panel and board found by clear and convincing evidence that 
respondent had violated DR 1-102(A)(6).  We accept the board’s findings of fact 
and misconduct. 
Sanction 
{¶ 8} When imposing sanctions for attorney misconduct, we consider 
relevant factors, including the ethical duties that the lawyer violated and the 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO 
4 
 
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 Section 10(B) of the Rules and Regulations Governing Procedure on 
Complaints and Hearings Before the Board of Commissioners on Grievances and 
Discipline (“BCGD Proc.Reg.”).  Disciplinary Counsel v. Broeren, 115 Ohio 
St.3d 473, 2007-Ohio-5251, 875 N.E.2d 935, ¶ 21.  We are mindful that the 
disciplinary process is designed not only to protect clients and the public from 
attorneys who are unworthy of the trust and confidence essential to the attorney-
client relationship but also to ensure the administration of justice and to maintain 
the integrity of the legal profession as a whole.  Disciplinary Counsel v. Hunter, 
106 Ohio St.3d 418, 2005-Ohio-5411, 835 N.E.2d 707, ¶ 32. 
{¶ 9} Respondent has entered a guilty plea and been convicted of 
knowingly using an interactive computer service to transport obscene materials in 
interstate or foreign commerce in direct contravention of a federal statute that 
carries a maximum sentence of five years in prison, a fine of up to $250,000, and 
three years of supervised release.  Section 1462(a), Title 18, U.S.Code. 
{¶ 10} No aggravating factors are present.  In mitigation, the panel and 
board found that respondent has no prior disciplinary record, has fully cooperated 
with and made free disclosure in the disciplinary proceedings, has had other 
penalties or sanctions imposed upon him, and has not damaged any client with his 
misconduct.  BCGD Proc.Reg. 10(B)(2)(a), (d), and (f).  Respondent produced 
convincing evidence of his good character and reputation, including letters from 
more than 20 persons, including friends, employees, spiritual leaders, mental-
health professionals, representatives of community organizations, and others who 
know him.  BCGD Proc.Reg. 10(B)(2)(e).  He has expressed genuine remorse for 
the harm he caused to his family and to the legal profession and has accepted 
responsibility for the consequences of his actions, which include bankruptcy, the 
January Term, 2010 
5 
 
loss of his job, and the loss of his license to practice law.  The panel and board 
also noted that during his confinement, respondent read 146 books in an effort to 
prepare for his life after prison.  Based upon these facts, both the panel and the 
board expressed their confidence that respondent has been rehabilitated. 
{¶ 11} In support of its recommended sanction of a 12-month suspension 
with credit for time served under the interim felony suspension, the board cites 
five cases in which we imposed one-year suspensions from the practice of law.  
Although each of those cases involved a respondent convicted of a single federal 
offense, the offenses were all of a financial rather than a sexual nature, and the 
longest prison term imposed in those cases was four months.  See Dayton Bar 
Assn. v. Bart (1997), 80 Ohio St.3d 538, 687 N.E.2d 681 (conviction for 
conspiracy to commit tax fraud resulting in a fine of $10,000 and three years of 
probation); Disciplinary Counsel v. Petroff (1999), 85 Ohio St.3d 396, 709 
N.E.2d 111 (conviction for attempting to evade federal income taxes resulting in a 
sentence of four months’ home detention, two years’ probation, and an order to 
pay restitution); Disciplinary Counsel v. Miller (1997), 79 Ohio St.3d 115, 679 
N.E.2d 1098 (conviction for  aiding and abetting the filing of a false tax return 
resulting in a sentence of two years of probation, 400 hours of community service, 
and a donation of $3000 to a community service project); Disciplinary Counsel v. 
Lash (1993), 68 Ohio St.3d 12, 623 N.E.2d 28 (conviction for bank fraud 
resulting in a sentence of one year’s probation, 100 hours of community service, 
and a $1000 fine); Dayton Bar Assn. v. Seall (1998), 81 Ohio St.3d 280, 690 
N.E.2d 1271 (conviction for conspiracy to commit tax fraud resulting in a four-
month prison term followed by two years of supervised release). 
{¶ 12} At the other end of the spectrum, in Disciplinary Counsel v. 
Ridenbaugh, 122 Ohio St.3d 583, 2009-Ohio-4091, 913 N.E.2d 443, we 
indefinitely suspended an attorney’s license to practice law with credit for time 
served under an interim felony suspension for misconduct involving acts of 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO 
6 
 
voyeurism and use of child pornography.  Similarly, we imposed an indefinite 
suspension in Columbus Bar Assn. v. Linnen, 111 Ohio St.3d 507, 2006-Ohio-
5480, 857 N.E.2d 539, for an attorney who indecently exposed himself to at least 
30 different women while photographing their reactions. 
{¶ 13} At first glance, the misconduct at issue in Ridenbaugh and Linnen 
appears to be far more serious than respondent’s importation of obscenity 
depicting consenting adults.  We note, however, that Ridenbaugh received a 
criminal sentence of 48 months in prison but served only 56 days before receiving 
judicial release and commencing a five-year term of community control.  Linnen 
received a criminal sentence of 18 months of work release followed by five years 
of probation and was fined $3,000.  But due to the closure of the work-release 
facility, he served only 12 months of his sentence before being released on 
probation.  Respondent, in contrast, received and served a criminal sentence of 15 
months in federal prison after pleading guilty to the transportation and 
importation of obscene matters over the Internet. 
{¶ 14} Having reviewed the record, weighed the aggravating and 
mitigating factors, and considered the sanctions imposed for comparable conduct, 
we conclude that the recommended sanction fails to adequately address the 
seriousness of respondent’s conduct.  Moreover, permitting respondent to serve as 
an officer of this court while he remains on supervised release for violating the 
very laws he has been sworn to uphold would undermine the public’s perception 
of and confidence in our justice system.  Therefore, due to the severity of 
respondent’s crime as measured by the duration of his prison term and subsequent 
supervised release, and in light of the mitigating factors cited by the board, the 
appropriate sanction for his misconduct falls between the one-year suspensions of 
Bart, Petroff, et al., and the indefinite suspensions of Ridenbaugh and Linnen. 
{¶ 15} Accordingly, Patrick Joseph O’Malley is suspended from the 
practice of law in Ohio for two years, with credit for the interim felony 
January Term, 2010 
7 
 
suspension commencing on December 4, 2008.  However, as a condition to 
reinstatement, respondent must first complete his federal supervised release.  
Costs are taxed to respondent. 
Judgment accordingly. 
 
PFEIFER, O’CONNOR, O’DONNELL, and CUPP, JJ., concur. 
 
LUNDBERG STRATTON and LANZINGER, JJ., dissent. 
 
BROWN, C.J., not participating. 
__________________ 
 
LUNDBERG STRATTON, J., dissenting. 
{¶ 16} I disagree with the sanction imposed by the majority opinion.  I 
would accept the board’s recommendation that we suspend respondent from the 
practice of law for 12 months and credit him with time served under the interim 
suspension.  Therefore, I respectfully dissent. 
 
LANZINGER, J., concurs in the foregoing opinion. 
__________________ 
Jonathan E. Coughlan, Disciplinary Counsel, and Heather L. Hissom, 
Assistant Disciplinary Counsel, for relator. 
Koeblentz & Koeblentz, L.L.C., Richard S. Koblentz, and Bryan L. 
Penvose, for respondent. 
______________________