Title: Toledo Bar Assn. v. Yoder

State: ohio

Issuer: Ohio Supreme Court

Document:

[Until this opinion appears in the Ohio Official Reports advance sheets, it may be cited as 
Toledo Bar Assn. v. Yoder, Slip Opinion No. 2020-Ohio-4775.] 
 
 
 
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. 2020-OHIO-4775 
TOLEDO BAR ASSOCIATION v. YODER. 
[Until this opinion appears in the Ohio Official Reports advance sheets, it 
may be cited as Toledo Bar Assn. v. Yoder, Slip Opinion No. 2020-Ohio-4775.] 
Attorneys—Misconduct—Violations of the Rules of Professional Conduct, 
including using means when representing a client that have no substantial 
purpose other than to embarrass, harass, delay, or burden a third 
person—Two-year suspension with six months conditionally stayed. 
(No. 2020-0228—Submitted June 2, 2020—Decided October 6, 2020.) 
ON CERTIFIED REPORT by the Board of Professional Conduct of the Supreme 
Court, No. 2019-030. 
______________ 
Per Curiam. 
{¶ 1} Respondent, Thomas Alan Yoder, of Holland, Ohio, Attorney 
Registration No. 0020792, was admitted to the practice of law in Ohio in 1977. 
{¶ 2} In a three-count amended complaint filed on September 27, 2019, 
relator, Toledo Bar Association, charged Yoder with multiple rule violations 
arising from (1) allegedly false statements he made regarding a magistrate, 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO 
 
2
opposing counsel, and opposing parties in two separate client matters and (2) 
threatening letters he sent to two witnesses whom he intended to call at his 
disciplinary proceeding. 
{¶ 3} At a hearing, a three-member panel of the Board of Professional 
Conduct heard testimony from ten witnesses, received the parties’ stipulations 
regarding the testimony of five additional witnesses in lieu of live testimony, and 
admitted more than 100 exhibits.  Following the hearing, the panel unanimously 
dismissed six of the alleged rule violations.  The panel issued a report finding that 
Yoder committed  many of the alleged rule violations, dismissing others, and 
recommending that he be suspended from the practice of law for two years, with 
one year conditionally stayed, with a condition for his reinstatement.  The board 
adopted the panel’s findings of fact, conclusions of law, and recommended 
sanction.  Yoder objects, arguing that the board’s findings of fact and misconduct 
are not supported by the record and that the recommended sanction is unduly 
harsh. 
{¶ 4} On review, we find that the board’s findings of fact and misconduct 
are supported by the record but that a more severe sanction is necessary to protect 
the public from Yoder’s ongoing misconduct.  We therefore overrule Yoder’s 
objections and suspend him from the practice of law for two years with six 
months conditionally stayed.  As a condition of reinstatement, Yoder shall be 
required to submit proof that he has been evaluated by the Ohio Lawyers 
Assistance Program (“OLAP”) and that he has complied with any 
recommendations arising from that evaluation. 
MISCONDUCT 
Count One: The Child-Custody Matter 
{¶ 5} In 2015, Yoder represented maternal grandparents in their effort to 
obtain custody of their minor grandchildren in the Lucas County Court of 
Common Pleas, Juvenile Division.  Codi Dowe, a cousin of the children’s father, 
January Term, 2020 
 
3
sought to intervene in the proceeding and filed an emergency custody motion.  
The magistrate awarded temporary custody of the children to Dowe.  Although 
the parties later agreed that the children would return to the grandparents’ home, 
the litigation continued and relationships between the parties remained 
contentious. 
Yoder’s False and Threatening Statements Regarding Dowe 
{¶ 6} As the litigation wore on, Yoder made a number of false and 
threatening statements about Dowe in his written communications.  In a letter to 
Dowe dated December 26, 2016, Yoder accused her of kidnapping the children by 
lying to his clients and stated that he would ask the children’s guardian ad litem 
(“GAL”) to examine children-services reports that “totally contradict[ed]” 
Dowe’s “lies and fabrications” at the emergency custody hearing.  In a January 
10, 2017 letter to Dowe, he claimed that she had lied about him in a motion she 
had filed, told her not to “ever, ever lie about [him] again in court,” and said that 
she was “out of touch with reality.”  Yoder also claimed in the letter that the court 
had appointed a GAL “to show that [Dowe had] some serious, serious mental 
problems, starting with [her] bogus claims about the [grandparents].” 
{¶ 7} The next day, Dowe claimed in an e-mail to Yoder that he knew 
“exactly who raped” one of the children’s relatives.  In his reply e-mail, Yoder 
denied knowledge of any rape, again told Dowe she had “some serious, serious 
problems” and was “obviously delusional,”1 and opined that it would be in the 
children’s best interest “to not have anything to do with [her] and [her] mental 
problems.” 
{¶ 8} In a January 31, 2017 motion to terminate Dowe’s visitation with the 
children, Yoder alleged that Dowe’s unfounded allegations about the grandparents 
                                                          
 
1. Based on questions Yoder asked Dowe at his disciplinary hearing, the board found that Yoder 
had misconstrued Dowe’s statement about the rape and leapt to the conclusion that she was 
blaming him for the rape and was accusing him of covering it up. 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO 
 
4
had caused great emotional harm to one of the children.  He also reiterated his 
claims that Dowe was delusional, had serious mental problems, and needed 
professional help.  And in May 2017 letters to the GAL, Yoder indicated that 
things “ha[d] gotten to be real personal between [the magistrate], Mrs. Dowe and 
myself” and claimed that Dowe had a “lack of ability to see realty [sic].” 
{¶ 9} In an October 2017 letter, Yoder told Dowe, a nurse, that he had 
contemplated reporting Dowe’s actions to the Ohio Board of Nursing; he also 
threatened her financial well-being.  He later wrote to the Michigan and Ohio 
boards of nursing, aggressively urging them to investigate Dowe’s mental 
condition and fitness to be a nurse—and sent copies of several of those letters to 
Dowe. 
{¶ 10} For example, in April 2018, Yoder sent a letter to the Michigan 
Department of Licensing and Regulatory Affairs, accusing Dowe of lying at the 
emergency custody hearing, claiming that she was a “very, very troubled woman 
and in need of professional help,” and stating that she “has some serious issues 
that very well could affect her functioning as a nurse.”  He claimed that Dowe had 
“leveled bizarre unfounded accusations” against him for two and a half years and 
had “refuse[d] to answer for her wild, insane allegations” that “only exist in her 
mind.”  He asked that the regulatory department conduct a hearing “to determine 
Mrs. Dowe’s mental capacity” and suggested that “she may be a danger to her 
patients and those that work with her.”  He made additional allegations in a June 
2018 letter to the department, claiming that Dowe had exhibited “bizarre visions 
of paranoia” and that a conversation that she reportedly had had with the 
children’s GAL “only exists in her mind.”  Yoder made similar allegations against 
Dowe in a series of four letters he sent to the Ohio Board of Nursing between July 
2018 and February 2019. 
{¶ 11} The board found that Yoder had no factual basis to support the 
allegations he had asserted against Dowe.  Although the board acknowledged that 
January Term, 2020 
 
5
Dowe may have been misinformed about background information in the 
underlying custody case, neither the panel nor any of the witnesses who knew 
Dowe found her to be anything other than sincere, intelligent, and believable.  
Indeed, the children’s caseworker, the magistrate, and two GALs all testified that 
they had no concerns about Dowe’s mental stability.  Finding that Yoder’s 
admitted goal was to remove Dowe from the children’s lives and “get [her] off 
[his] butt” and that his allegations against her were unfounded, the board also 
determined that Yoder had reported Dowe to professional regulatory 
organizations solely to obtain an advantage in a civil matter. 
Yoder’s False and Undignified Statements about the Magistrate 
{¶ 12} In July 2017, Yoder objected to the magistrate’s order regarding 
GAL fees and filed an affidavit of prejudice and bias against the magistrate.  In 
that document, Yoder declared that the magistrate’s ruling on Dowe’s September 
2015 emergency custody motion “was the most absolutely insane decision [he 
had] ever encountered in almost 40 years” and was not what “a normal, competent 
magistrate would have done.” 
{¶ 13} He accused the magistrate of lying about communications with a 
caseworker and the GAL regarding whether the children were in immediate 
danger at the grandparents’ home.  Yoder claimed that there was absolutely no 
basis for removing the children from the home and that at subsequent hearings, 
the magistrate personally attacked him instead of admitting that his actions with 
regard to the emergency custody motion were “100% wrong.”  Based on the 
magistrate’s alleged lies, “incredible arrogance,” “taunts, threats and lectures,” 
and “vendetta” against him, Yoder suggested that the magistrate could not be 
objective and opined that either he should voluntarily remove himself from the 
case or the affidavit of prejudice and bias should proceed to a full hearing. 
{¶ 14} We note that the magistrate testified that based on the evidence 
presented at the emergency custody hearing, he had found probable cause to 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO 
 
6
believe that the children were at some risk of imminent harm that warranted their 
removal from the grandparents’ home.  He stated that it seemed as though Yoder 
was blaming the court for interjecting itself into the family’s life and that the law 
allows for anyone to file for custody of a child in this state.  He explained that he 
runs a no-nonsense courtroom and that while he tolerates some grandstanding or 
dramatics, Yoder’s personal attacks on Dowe had crossed the line.  Although the 
magistrate did not believe that he had any bias, he agreed with the judge’s August 
2017 decision to reassign the case to ensure that the magistrate’s increasing anger 
with Yoder’s treatment of Dowe would not detract from what was in the best 
interest of the children. 
{¶ 15} Even after the judge transferred the case to another magistrate, 
Yoder voiced his displeasure with the original magistrate in a court filing and in a 
letter to the Michigan Department of Licensing and Regulatory Affairs.  And at 
his disciplinary hearing, Yoder testified that he stood by everything he had said 
about the magistrate. 
{¶ 16} The panel found that there was a legitimate disagreement regarding 
the magistrate’s findings in the emergency custody hearing, but the panel also 
found the magistrate’s testimony at Yoder’s disciplinary hearing to be “at all 
times completely credible.”  The board determined that Yoder had no reasonable 
basis in fact to allege that the magistrate had lied and that his statements about the 
magistrate’s conduct were undignified or discourteous and degrading to the 
tribunal.  See Disciplinary Counsel v. Gardner, 99 Ohio St.3d 416, 2003-Ohio-
4048, 793 N.E.2d 425, ¶ 31 (“an attorney may be sanctioned for making 
accusations of judicial impropriety that a reasonable attorney would believe are 
false”). 
Rule Violations 
{¶ 17} The board found that Yoder’s conduct with respect to Dowe 
violated Prof.Cond.R. 1.2(e) (prohibiting a lawyer from presenting, participating 
January Term, 2020 
 
7
in presenting, or threatening to present professional-misconduct allegations solely 
to obtain an advantage in a civil matter) and 4.4(a) (prohibiting a lawyer in 
representing a client from using means that have no substantial purpose other than 
to embarrass, harass, delay, or burden a third person) and that his conduct with 
respect to the magistrate violated Prof.Cond.R. 3.3(a)(1) (prohibiting a lawyer 
from knowingly making a false statement of fact or law to a tribunal) and 
3.5(a)(6) (prohibiting a lawyer from engaging in undignified or discourteous 
conduct that is degrading to a tribunal). 
{¶ 18} In addition, the board found that Yoder’s unsupported, untruthful, 
and derogatory statements regarding both the magistrate and Dowe violated 
Prof.Cond.R. 3.1 (prohibiting a lawyer from asserting or controverting an issue in 
a proceeding unless there is a basis in law or fact for doing so that is not 
frivolous), 4.1(a) (prohibiting a lawyer, while representing a client, from 
knowingly making a false statement of material fact or law to a third person), 
8.4(c) (prohibiting a lawyer from engaging in conduct involving dishonesty, 
fraud, deceit, or misrepresentation), and 8.4(d) (prohibiting a lawyer from 
engaging in conduct that is prejudicial to the administration of justice). 
Count Two: The Land-Contract Matter 
{¶ 19} In October 2010, Steven Thomas entered into a contract to 
purchase a home.  Several months later, he discovered that the property was 
subject to a mortgage that had not been disclosed in the land contract.  He became 
concerned that the mortgage was not being paid and that his payments were not 
being properly applied to cover the taxes and insurance on the property.  Thomas 
and his wife, Lisa, retained attorney Fan Zhang to represent them, and the seller 
engaged Yoder to represent him. 
{¶ 20} Thereafter, in two letters to Yoder, Zhang advised him that the 
Thomases would file suit if Yoder did not provide certain documents.  Yoder 
responded in writing, stating, “I don’t know who you think you are, but do not 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO 
 
8
ever threaten me or doubt when I tell you something,” and “Do not, I repeat, do 
not ever threaten me or any other normal attorney with lawsuits or contempt of 
court filings and tell us what to do.”  On at least two occasions, he accused Zhang 
in writing of “churning” the Thomases to increase his legal fees.  During 
disciplinary proceedings, Yoder suggested in a letter to relator that Zhang “saw a 
chance to rip [the Thomases] off.” 
{¶ 21} In July 2012, the Thomases filed a complaint against the seller in 
the Lucas County Court of Common Pleas.  In his answer, Yoder stated that 
“Plaintiff’s counsel apparently does not understand the land contract process.”  In 
a letter proposing mediation, Yoder told Zhang, “Since you and I have trouble 
communicating, may I suggest that you also bring another member of your firm to 
the mediation?  It is apparent in my humble opinion that you do not understand 
the lawsuit that you filed.”  He later wrote to Zhang, stating: “As I have said in 
the past, you are a complete idiot!  For over two (2) years, I have asked you to get 
some help about your misunderstanding about a vendor being able to transfer title 
to real estate.  However you are to [sic] stupid to know how stupid you are and 
your [recent letters] prove that once again.”  In the same letter, he wrote, “[Y]our 
letter of January 5, 2015 was so stupid, I sent it back to you as I didn’t want it in 
my file,” and he closed the letter with “No more idiotic letters!!!” 
{¶ 22} Zhang stopped representing the Thomases in March 2017.  Several 
months later, Yoder sent the Thomases a note stating, “Zhang lied to you so that 
he could file the lawsuit. * * *  You paid him for absolutely nothing!  I have tried 
to make him understand, but he is unable to grasp the concept.”  In a 2018 letter 
to the Thomases’ new counsel, Yoder said that Lisa Thomas is a “very ignorant, 
troubled woman,” “a liar,” and “an idiot.”  He further opined that Zhang was a 
“mentally ill attorney advising an idiot” and stated that “[n]ether [sic] has 
understood what is going on from the start.”  He claimed that he had “tried to 
carry on an intelligent conversations [sic] with [Zhang], but like everyone else 
January Term, 2020 
 
9
[Yoder] had no luck.” In addition, he asserted that his problems over the prior 
seven years all related back to “Zhang and his inability to understand basic 
principles of real estate law and his desire to mislead the Thomas’ [sic] to churn 
them for attorney’s fees.” 
{¶ 23} The board found that Yoder’s assertions that Lisa Thomas is a liar, 
that Zhang was mentally incompetent, and that Zhang had lied to the Thomases to 
charge an unreasonable fee were without basis in fact or law and were frivolous.  
In addition, the board noted that while Steven Thomas’s lawsuit was pending in 
the Lucas County Court of Common Pleas, Yoder filed a complaint against 
Thomas in the Sylvania Municipal Court.  The municipal court granted Thomas’s 
unopposed motion to dismiss, on the ground that the complaint raised the same 
facts and issues that were pending in the common pleas court case.  The common 
pleas court later issued a decision in Thomas’s favor, and that judgment was 
affirmed on appeal.  The board found that Yoder’s municipal-court filing was 
both frivolous and prejudicial to the administration of justice. 
{¶ 24} Based on Yoder’s conduct in the Thomas matter, the board found 
that he violated Prof.Cond.R. 3.1, 4.1(a), 4.4(a), and 8.4(d). 
Count Three: Letters to Witnesses in the Disciplinary Proceeding 
{¶ 25} In a September 2019 letter to Dowe’s father, Yoder stated his 
intention to subpoena both of Dowe’s parents to testify at Yoder’s upcoming 
disciplinary hearing.  Yoder explained, “Your daughter is scheduled to appear and 
will answer my questions under oath regarding her conduct as it relates to the  
* * * children.  These include intentionally lying to the court and intentionally 
violating court orders.”  After explaining that Dowe had previously stated that her 
parents had transported the children following Dowe’s visitation—contrary to the 
grandparents’ claims—Yoder stated, “Since you will put [sic] under oath and 
subject [sic] to the laws of perjury should you lie, may I respectfully suggest that 
you retain an attorney to advise you as to the ramification of your testimony?” 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO 
 
10 
{¶ 26} In September 2019, Yoder sent the Thomases a similar letter 
stating that he had filed a response to Lisa Thomas’s grievance and had attached 
documentation “to show that [the Thomases had] consistently lied about [his] 
conduct.”  In the next sentence, he suggested that the Thomases contact an 
attorney “to advise [them] about [their] rights and obligations, as [they would] be 
under oath at the hearing.” 
{¶ 27} The board found that these letters served no substantial purpose 
other than to strike fear in, embarrass, harass, or burden the recipients with the 
cost of hiring counsel to address Yoder’s inappropriate threats and innuendo.  
Consequently, the board found that Yoder’s conduct violated Prof.Cond.R. 4.4(a). 
RECOMMENDED SANCTION 
{¶ 28} When imposing sanctions for attorney misconduct, we consider all 
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. 
{¶ 29} As aggravating factors, the board found that Yoder had engaged in 
a pattern of misconduct, committed multiple offenses, and refused to 
acknowledge the wrongful nature of his conduct.  See Gov.Bar R. V(13)(B)(3), 
(4), and (7).  The board also found that Yoder had caused harm to the vulnerable 
victims of his misconduct by creating fear, threatening Dowe’s livelihood, 
unnecessarily increasing the costs in what should have been uncomplicated legal 
matters, and ultimately causing Dowe to withdraw from the underlying custody 
case.  See Gov.Bar R. V(13)(B)(8).  The board also noted that Yoder had made 
numerous inappropriate statements about relator’s counsel.  For example, in his 
posthearing brief, he stated that relator “will sink to any depth to trump up 
anything against me” and that relator’s counsel “had absolutely no clue as to any 
of the facts he has alleged in his complaint.”  He further suggested that counsel 
“has never read any of the pleading, or Emails nor has he looked at any of the 
January Term, 2020 
 
11 
exhibits before attacking, [Yoder’s] integrity, competency and ethics” (emphasis 
sic) and that relator had a vendetta against him. 
{¶ 30} As for mitigation, the board found that Yoder has no prior 
discipline and that he had made full and free disclosure to the board and 
cooperated in the disciplinary proceedings—though the board noted that Yoder 
had demonstrated a high degree of obduracy and had remained committed to the 
proposition that his actions were unassailable because decisions made in the 
underlying cases were unjust and he was speaking the truth.  See Gov.Bar R. 
V(13)(C)(1) and (4). 
{¶ 31} In determining the appropriate sanction to recommend for Yoder’s 
misconduct, the board began with the proposition that when an attorney has made 
material misrepresentations to a court and engaged in a course of conduct that 
results in a finding that the attorney has violated rules prohibiting dishonesty, 
fraud, deceit, or misrepresentation, “the attorney will be actually suspended from 
the practice of law for an appropriate period of time.”  Disciplinary Counsel v. 
Fowerbaugh, 74 Ohio St.3d 187, 190, 658 N.E.2d 237 (1995); see also Cleveland 
Bar Assn. v. Herzog, 87 Ohio St.3d 215, 217, 718 N.E.2d 1274 (1999) (“We will 
not allow attorneys who lie to courts to continue practicing law without 
interruption”). 
{¶ 32} The board also considered cases in which we imposed sanctions 
ranging from a fully stayed suspension to an indefinite suspension for similar rule 
violations involving the making of false statements to courts and others and/or 
inappropriate threats of legal action.  For example, in Disciplinary Counsel v. 
Harmon, 158 Ohio St.3d 248, 2019-Ohio-4171, 141 N.E.3d 142, we imposed a 
fully stayed two-year suspension on an attorney with an unblemished 40-year 
career who falsely informed a magistrate that his elderly client (who was also a 
close personal friend) had been kidnapped and later filed a frivolous lawsuit in an 
attempt to collect his fees.  The board distinguished the facts of this case from 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO 
 
12 
Harmon on the ground that none of Yoder’s acts of misconduct were taken in the 
heat and passion of the moment.  Instead of expressing his disagreements on the 
merits of the custody and land-contract cases at issue in an ethical fashion, Yoder 
engaged in a deliberate pattern of false and inappropriate written communications 
regarding four people over several years. 
{¶ 33} In Dayton Bar Association v. Swift, 142 Ohio St.3d 476, 2014-
Ohio-4835, 33 N.E.3d 1, we imposed a two-year suspension, with the second year 
conditionally stayed, on an attorney who grossly overbilled for the work he had 
performed and made false statements to a court and others—misconduct that, like 
Yoder’s misconduct, violated Prof.Cond.R. 3.3(a)(1), 4.1(a), 8.4(c), and 8.4(d). 
{¶ 34} And in Disciplinary Counsel v. Pullins, 127 Ohio St.3d 436, 2010-
Ohio-6241, 940 N.E.2d 952, we indefinitely suspended an attorney who, among 
other things, had made false and disrespectful statements regarding two judges in 
affidavits of disqualification, accused two judges and a prosecutor of engaging in 
ex parte communications about pending cases, issued a subpoena to the wife of 
the judge presiding over his client’s case in an attempt to disqualify the judge, and 
showed no remorse for his conduct.  Expressing concern that underlying mental-
health issues may have contributed to Pullins’s misconduct, we conditioned his 
reinstatement on the submission of proof to a reasonable degree of medical 
certainty that he was mentally fit to return to the competent, professional, and 
ethical practice of law. 
{¶ 35} Given the sheer volume of Yoder’s false statements that were 
degrading to the tribunal and were intended to embarrass, harass, and 
unnecessarily burden opposing counsel and parties, the board concluded that 
Yoder’s misconduct warrants actual time out from the practice of law.  After 
weighing the applicable aggravating and mitigating factors and precedent, the 
board recommends that Yoder be suspended from the practice of law for two 
years with one year stayed on the condition that he refrain from further 
January Term, 2020 
 
13 
misconduct.  In addition, the board recommends that his reinstatement be 
conditioned on proof that he has submitted to an OLAP evaluation and complied 
with any recommendations arising from that evaluation. 
{¶ 36} In 112 pages of rambling objections, Yoder argues that the Dowe 
and Thomas cases were wrongly decided and that the merits of those cases are 
highly relevant to the resolution of this disciplinary matter.  But the issue before 
us is not whether Yoder’s positions or the trial courts’ decisions in those cases 
were correct.  The issue is how Yoder conducted himself in contentious litigation 
and in the face of adverse rulings. 
{¶ 37} In his objections, Yoder categorically denies that he has committed 
any ethical violations.  He maintains that all his statements about the magistrate 
and the parties to the Dowe and Thomas cases and their counsel are true and that 
nearly everyone involved in those cases and this disciplinary proceeding has lied 
or exhibited bias against him.  He further contends that the allegedly erroneous 
rulings of the courts and the allegedly poor treatment he received from others in 
the underlying litigation somehow justify his “bad attitude” and harsh 
characterizations of others. 
{¶ 38} In this case, in addition to the evidence presented at Yoder’s 
disciplinary hearing, the panel reviewed Yoder’s court filings and extensive 
correspondence in the underlying litigation.  The panel heard Yoder’s testimony 
and the conflicting evidence from witnesses who were involved in the underlying 
custody litigation, including Dowe, the GALs, a case worker, the magistrate, and 
the trial-court judge in the custody proceedings.  Furthermore, the panel had the 
opportunity to assess Lisa Thomas’s credibility as she testified regarding her 
interactions with Yoder throughout the course of the land-contract case.  The 
findings of fact and misconduct set forth above plainly demonstrate that the panel 
found the testimony of those witnesses to be more credible than that of Yoder. 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO 
 
14 
{¶ 39} We typically defer to the panel’s credibility determinations unless 
the record weighs heavily against those findings because the panel has the 
opportunity to observe the witnesses firsthand.  Cincinnati Bar Assn. v. Statzer, 
101 Ohio St.3d 14, 2003-Ohio-6649, 800 N.E.2d 1117, ¶ 8, citing Cleveland Bar 
Assn. v. Cleary, 93 Ohio St.3d 191, 198, 754 N.E.2d 235 (2001).  In this case, the 
record does not weigh heavily against the board’s credibility determinations.  On 
the contrary, our independent review of the record confirms that the findings of 
fact and misconduct set forth above are supported by clear and convincing 
evidence. 
{¶ 40} Indeed, the record demonstrates that over the last eight years, 
Yoder has been unable or unwilling to address his frustrations in the underlying 
cases—be they adverse court rulings, perceived criticism of his own conduct, or 
his own perceptions that others are performing incompetently—in a concise, 
rational, and professional manner.  Instead, he has lashed out at a magistrate in an 
undignified and discourteous fashion and degraded the tribunal for granting what 
he considered to be an erroneous and absurd emergency custody order—though 
he never moved the court to set aside the order.  He has also made numerous false 
and inflammatory statements about the magistrate, Dowe, Lisa Thomas, and 
Zhang in correspondence with them and with others, threatened Dowe’s financial 
well-being, and made false and derogatory statements to professional-licensing 
boards about her conduct, veracity, and mental health for the sole purpose of 
gaining an advantage in the custody case.  Based on the foregoing, we overrule 
Yoder’s objections to the board’s findings of fact and misconduct and we adopt as 
our own the board’s findings as set forth above. 
{¶ 41} Yoder’s final objection is that the board’s recommended sanction is 
“unduly harsh” because it is based on “totally fabricated facts” and 
“unsubstantiated conclusions.”  But we have already found that the board’s 
findings of fact and misconduct are supported by clear and convincing evidence, 
January Term, 2020 
 
15 
and Yoder has neither offered any precedent to support his claim nor suggested 
any alternative sanction.  The board’s recommended sanction of a two-year 
suspension, with one year conditionally stayed, might be an appropriate sanction 
for Yoder’s extensive pattern of false allegations, his repeated insistence that he 
stands by every word of those allegations, and his refusal to acknowledge that he 
has done anything wrong—if his misconduct had stopped there.  But Yoder has 
continued to levy false and inflammatory accusations with little or no basis in fact 
against anyone who disagrees with him—including relator’s counsel and the 
member of the board responsible for drafting the report in this disciplinary 
proceeding.  Consequently, we believe that a more severe sanction is necessary to 
protect the public and to convey that Yoder’s conduct will not be tolerated going 
forward.  We therefore suspend Yoder from the practice of law for two years with 
the final six months conditionally stayed, and we agree that his reinstatement to 
the practice of law shall be conditioned on his completion of an OLAP evaluation 
and compliance with any recommendations arising therefrom. 
{¶ 42} Accordingly, Thomas Alan Yoder is suspended from the practice 
of law for two years with the final six months stayed on the condition that he 
engage in no further misconduct.  If Yoder violates the condition of the stay, the 
stay will be lifted and he will serve the entire two-year suspension.  In addition to 
the requirements for reinstatement set forth in Gov.Bar R. V(24), Yoder shall 
provide proof that he has submitted to an evaluation by OLAP and that he has 
complied with any recommendations arising from that evaluation.  Costs are taxed 
to Yoder. 
Judgment accordingly. 
O’CONNOR, C.J., and KENNEDY, FRENCH, FISCHER, DEWINE, DONNELLY, 
and STEWART, JJ., concur. 
_________________ 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO 
 
16 
Patricia B. Fugée; Robert J. Bahret; and Joseph P. Dawson, Bar Counsel, 
for relator. 
Thomas A. Yoder, pro se. 
_________________