Title: Disciplinary Counsel v. O'Diam

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’Diam, Slip Opinion No. 2023-Ohio-1118.] 
 
                                                                
 
 
 
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. 2023-OHIO-1118 
DISCIPLINARY COUNSEL v. O’DIAM. 
[Until this opinion appears in the Ohio Official Reports advance sheets, it 
may be cited as Disciplinary Counsel v. O’Diam, Slip Opinion No.  
2023-Ohio-1118.] 
Attorneys—Misconduct—Violations of the Rules of Professional Conduct—
Conditionally stayed six-month suspension. 
(No. 2022-0953—Submitted January 10, 2023—Decided April 6, 2023.) 
ON CERTIFIED REPORT by the Board of Professional Conduct of the  
Supreme Court, No. 2021-031. 
______________ 
Per Curiam. 
{¶ 1} Respondent, Brittany Dawn O’Diam, of Centerville, Ohio, Attorney 
Registration No. 0086663, was admitted to the practice of law in Ohio in 2010. 
{¶ 2} In a December 2021 complaint, relator, disciplinary counsel, alleged 
that O’Diam violated five professional-conduct rules in representing the executor 
of a decedent’s estate. 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO 
 
2 
{¶ 3} The parties entered into 62 stipulations of fact and submitted 84 
stipulated exhibits to the Board of Professional Conduct.  A three-member panel of 
the board conducted a hearing, after which it unanimously dismissed three of the 
five alleged rule violations.  The panel issued a report in which it found that O’Diam 
committed the two remaining alleged violations, which arose from her 
mistreatment of one of the estate’s beneficiaries.  Specifically, the panel found that 
O’Diam’s conduct violated Prof.Cond.R. 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 8.4(h) (prohibiting a 
lawyer from engaging in conduct that adversely reflects on the lawyer’s fitness to 
practice law). 
{¶ 4} The panel recommended that O’Diam be suspended from the practice 
of law for six months with the entire suspension stayed on the condition that she 
commit no further misconduct.  The board adopted the panel’s findings of fact and 
misconduct and recommended sanction.  No objections have been filed. 
{¶ 5} After a thorough review of the record, we adopt the board’s findings 
of misconduct and agree that a conditionally stayed six-month suspension is the 
appropriate sanction for O’Diam’s misconduct. 
I.  FINDINGS OF FACT 
A.  The Estate of Carolee Buccalo 
{¶ 6} On January 1, 2018, Carolee Buccalo died.  Carolee’s granddaughter, 
Yvonne Martin, was named as executor in Carolee’s will and retained O’Diam to 
represent her in the estate’s administration.  In addition to Martin, Carolee’s four 
sons—Grant David (“David”), James, Craig, and Nick Buccalo—were named as 
beneficiaries.  Martin’s father, James, was under guardianship in the Montgomery 
County Probate Court.  Under the terms of Carolee’s will, James’s inheritance was 
to be placed in a trust for his benefit, to be administered by Martin and David as 
successor cotrustees. 
January Term, 2023 
 
3 
{¶ 7} O’Diam’s father, Judge Thomas O’Diam, who is the only probate-
court judge in Greene County, presided over Carolee’s estate.  O’Diam had 
practiced with her father in his law firm for approximately three years after she was 
admitted to the practice of law before he was appointed to the bench in August 
2013. 
{¶ 8} Given O’Diam’s ties to the judge, her paralegal sent waivers of 
disqualification for each of Carolee’s beneficiaries to sign.  Those waivers 
disclosed that the judge’s former law firm was representing a party to the action, 
that the firm was indebted to the judge under a stock-redemption agreement, and 
that the judge’s daughter was a shareholder in the firm.  The waivers further stated 
that those facts “may lead someone to reasonably question Judge O’Diam’s 
impartiality” and “may disqualify [him]” from presiding over the case.  By signing 
the form, however, the beneficiaries acknowledged their belief that the judge would 
act “impartially and fairly, despite these circumstances.” 
{¶ 9} In early April 2018, only two of the beneficiaries had signed and 
returned the waivers.  Martin informed O’Diam’s paralegal by email that David 
was being difficult and had not done anything that she had asked of him.  The 
paralegal responded that the case could not be filed until she had received all the 
waivers, but she also stated, “[I]f David is going to be difficult we can petition the 
court to remove Judge O’Diam and bring in another judge.”  She explained, “[T]his 
is going to be an unnecessary expense to the estate and will delay how quickly we 
can get the estate closed out.” 
{¶ 10} On May 1, 2018, O’Diam filed an application to probate Carolee’s 
will, along with seven waivers of disqualification, including three signed by David 
in his personal and representative capacities.  O’Diam filed the initial inventory and 
appraisal and a schedule of assets for the estate in July 2018. 
{¶ 11} With the consent of the other beneficiaries, David purchased 
Carolee’s house from the estate in October 2018.  At O’Diam’s disciplinary 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO 
 
4 
hearing, David testified that the process started in June or July but that Martin had 
not immediately responded to his request to purchase the house and then had 
procrastinated before signing the contract. 
{¶ 12} In late February 2019, O’Diam prepared a distributive fiduciary 
account for the estate.  Each of the beneficiaries was asked to sign documents 
demonstrating their consent to the final accounting and distribution, but it does not 
appear that they were given any deadline for returning the documents to O’Diam.  
Neither David nor Nick returned the signed documents to O’Diam’s office within 
a reasonable amount of time.  At O’Diam’s disciplinary hearing, a probate-court 
clerk testified that it is not unusual for beneficiaries to fail to return such 
documents—and O’Diam stipulated that beneficiaries are not legally required to 
sign them.  However, the evidence also showed that O’Diam had not had experience 
handling estates without the unanimous consent of the beneficiaries.  Consequently, 
O’Diam’s paralegal told Martin that they would need to seek guidance from the 
court about how to proceed if David was not willing to sign the documents.  Even 
after David informed O’Diam’s office that his attorney had advised him not to sign 
the documents—and despite having heard nothing from Nick—O’Diam’s paralegal 
continued to blame David alone for the delays and additional expenses incurred. 
B.  David’s Comments before the Greene County Board of Commissioners 
{¶ 13} On May 23, 2019, David attended a public meeting of the Greene 
County Board of Commissioners and informed the commissioners that Judge 
O’Diam had presided over cases in which parties were represented by his family 
members.  David expressed his belief that the judge should recuse himself under 
those circumstances.  David further stated, “Justice depends on the appearance as 
well as the reality of fairness in all things.  Otherwise, it erodes public confidence 
in the legal system.”  He added that “[w]hen people leave the courtroom, * * * they 
need to feel like they got a fair shake” and that the system “wasn’t rigged.”  David 
spoke for approximately two and a half minutes on this issue and stated that he 
January Term, 2023 
 
5 
merely wanted to ensure that the commissioners were aware of Judge O’Diam’s 
practice.  He did not specifically mention his personal involvement with the judge, 
though he stated that he was planning to file a grievance with relator.  The 
commissioners did not comment on David’s concerns. 
C.  The O’Diams React to David’s Public Comments 
{¶ 14} Judge O’Diam learned of David’s statements to the commissioners 
within a few days after they occurred.  After determining that David was a 
beneficiary of Carolee’s estate, the judge reviewed the case file to ensure that all 
the waivers of disqualification had been filed.  He called O’Diam to inform her that 
David had made comments at the commissioners’ meeting that raised concerns 
about the validity of the waivers of disqualification.  Then the judge scheduled a 
June 6 status conference and ordered the executor and beneficiaries to appear.  His 
order cautioned that failure to attend would constitute contempt of court. 
{¶ 15} After her call with the judge, O’Diam attempted to determine 
whether David was represented by counsel.  She emailed two attorneys who had 
previously represented David.  She told one of those attorneys that David was being 
“uncooperative” and was creating additional work for her.  Then, after describing 
David’s comments at the county commissioners’ meeting, she stated: 
 
It is apparent to me that his only motivation for speaking at the 
Commissioner[s’] meeting was to stir the pot and attempt to make 
my family look bad. 
 
I am sure you can understand that I am extremely upset by 
this development, as I do not take kindly to my ethics being 
maligned, especially in a public forum.  The Court clerk contacted 
me today to tell me that [David]’s statements appeared in the 
Commissioner[s’] minutes, and as a result, the Judge has ordered a 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO 
 
6 
mandatory Status Conference for next week.  It sounds like he is 
even less happy than I am. 
 
{¶ 16} In late May, David consulted with another attorney about whether 
he should sign the documents to consent to the final accounting and distribution of 
the estate.  After receiving the scheduling notice for the status conference, David 
delivered the signed documents to O’Diam’s office.  But by that time, O’Diam had 
filed an amended inventory and appraisal and an amended schedule of assets 
disclosing several newly discovered assets that rendered obsolete the documents 
recently signed by David. 
{¶ 17} O’Diam emailed David to inform him that the signed documents did 
not relieve him of his obligation to attend the status conference and that his 
attendance was mandatory.  After David asked why O’Diam wanted him there, 
O’Diam replied, “I did not request your presence at the Status Conference, the 
Court is requiring that all of the beneficiaries are present.”  O’Diam did not inform 
David that she had spoken with the judge or that David’s public comments were 
the impetus for the status conference. 
D.  The Status Conference 
{¶ 18} David attended the June 6 status conference without counsel.  After 
thanking the beneficiaries for “showing up on such short notice,” the judge 
explained that a “very disturbing incident [had] taken place with the estate.”  He 
stated that he needed to “get it resolved” that day and then played a recording of 
David’s comments at the commissioners’ meeting. 
{¶ 19} After the recording was played, Judge O’Diam called David to the 
stand, placed him under oath, and informed him that any false statements he made 
would constitute perjury.  He examined David for nearly an hour on issues related 
to David’s waiver of disqualification and his comments to the commissioners, the 
latter of which the judge deemed “slander[ous]” and “despicable.”  The judge then 
January Term, 2023 
 
7 
allowed O’Diam to question David and make statements on the record for more 
than 15 minutes without restriction. 
{¶ 20} In Judge O’Diam’s disciplinary case, we summarized O’Diam’s 
questioning of David as follows: 
 
[O’Diam] asked a couple of questions about the waiver of 
disqualification and then said, “Do you expect that I should have 
known that you had an issue even though I received a signed waiver 
from you?”  [David] attempted to explain his concerns and stated, 
“I’m not trying to argue with you[,]” [t]o which [O’Diam] replied, 
“I am.”  [O’Diam] then cross-examined [David] regarding 
conversations that she had had with his attorney—even though 
[David] had not been present during those conversations—and 
presented her personal notes memorializing one of those 
conversations as an exhibit. 
 
[The judge] did not curtail [O’Diam]’s questioning of 
[David] in any way; rather, he assisted her in questioning [David].  
* * *  
 
[O’Diam] continued to question [David], repeatedly asking 
whether he had ever raised any concerns about the waiver to her.  He 
told her that he had not.  [O’Diam] then stated, “And yet you still 
thought it was appropriate to impugn my character as an attorney in 
the public forum of a public county commissioners meeting, as well 
as the character of the court, which has been addressed?”  [David] 
responded, “We might have differences of opinion,” to which 
[O’Diam] replied, “We certainly do.”  [David] concluded by stating, 
“I’m not trying to be rude, but when I did public comments * * * I 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO 
 
8 
make a habit of not trying to make them personal.”  [O’Diam] 
retorted, “You failed in this account.” 
 
After advising [David] that several forms that he had signed 
and delivered to her office were no longer valid, [O’Diam] told him 
that she felt that the only appropriate way to communicate with him 
was under oath right then.  She explained that his concerns could 
have been addressed much more efficiently if he had raised them in 
a timely manner.  She closed her questioning by informing [David], 
“You have cost this estate an extensive amount of money, an 
extensive amount of heartache and an extensive amount of stress 
that was all completely unnecessary had you just proceeded like an 
adult.”  [David] stated, “And I have no response to that,” to which 
[O’Diam] replied, “No you do not.  It was not a question.  * * *  It 
was a statement,” and then claimed, “This is not an adversarial 
proceeding.” 
 
(Ellipses sic.)  Disciplinary Counsel v. O’Diam, 168 Ohio St.3d 137, 2022-Ohio-
1370, 196 N.E.3d 812, ¶ 19-22. 
{¶ 21} At the conclusion of the status conference, Judge O’Diam 
announced that he would formally recuse himself from the case and request that a 
visiting judge be assigned. 
{¶ 22} In this disciplinary proceeding, the board found that beginning with 
O’Diam’s first question, her tone was “argumentative and aggressive” and that “it 
[was] evident from the audio recording * * * that she was angry with [David].”  
And although the judge testified that the purpose of the status conference was to 
determine whether he was able to continue to preside over the estate, neither the 
judge nor O’Diam allowed David to explain any concerns that he may have had 
about the waiver he had signed or asked him whether he wished to withdraw it. 
January Term, 2023 
 
9 
{¶ 23} David testified he did not know that the status conference would be 
focused on his comments at the commissioners’ meeting and that had he known 
that he would be called as a witness, he would have taken an attorney with him.  He 
explained that he felt that he was being “berated and beaten up” and “humiliated” 
during the judge’s questioning and that he “just wanted to survive the hour and be 
able to leave the courtroom.” 
{¶ 24} David described O’Diam’s tone and demeanor during the status 
conference as “[a]ggressive,” “[m]ean,” “[m]ean-spirited,” “[a]ngry,” and 
“[d]egrading.”  In addition to feeling embattled, ambushed, and humiliated, David 
stated, the abuse he suffered “destroyed [him] in front of [his] brothers” and 
destroyed his relationship with his family.  He explained that after the status 
conference, he fell into a deep depression that “shut [him] down” for several 
months.  He did not file a grievance against O’Diam, because he feared “retaliation” 
and “revenge” and he “just [didn’t] want to have any part of it.”  The board noted 
that David’s distress while recounting the experience nearly three years after it 
happened “was still painfully evident.” 
E.  Conclusion of the Probate Estate 
{¶ 25} In August 2019, a visiting judge was assigned to Carolee’s estate.  In 
the meantime, O’Diam had filed the final fiduciary’s account, which showed that a 
balance of approximately $156,000 would be distributed to the beneficiaries.  She 
also had filed an application for authority to pay attorney fees, seeking $8,171 for 
her work on the estate, which had been approved by Martin. 
{¶ 26} That filing included a statement from O’Diam explaining the 
reasonableness of her fees, which exceeded the amount rebuttably presumed to be 
reasonable under the applicable local rule.  See Loc.R. 71.2(E) of the Greene 
County Probate Court.  In that statement, O’Diam repeatedly referred to David as 
the “problematic” beneficiary and stated that he had been “a consistent source of 
unnecessary distress for the Executor from the start of the administration” and that 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO 
 
10 
his actions had “led to extensive additional time spent by the Executor and 
Counsel.”She stated that she had sent copies of a final distributive account to the 
beneficiaries with documents for them to sign but claimed that the “problematic” 
beneficiary failed to return them even though he had not expressed any objections 
to their content.  Although O’Diam now acknowledges that the beneficiaries were 
not required to sign the documents, she opined in the statement that “[t]his lack of 
cooperation resulted in the need to revise the final account * * * to make it a final 
non-distributive account.” 
{¶ 27} In her request for additional fees, O’Diam also stated that the revised 
final nondistributive account was ready to file when the court informed her of the 
need for a status conference “to address a complaint levied by the problematic 
beneficiary with the Greene County Commissioners” relating to “alleged 
misconduct of Counsel and the Court.”  She claimed that given the “additional 
disruption” created by those accusations, she “had no choice but to request an 
extension of the due date for the final account.”  O’Diam concluded her request for 
additional fees by noting that she had voluntarily reduced her fee to an amount that 
the court could approve without requiring each beneficiary’s consent because she 
was “sympathetic to the non-problematic beneficiaries” and felt that it was “unfair 
for them to have to bear even more of a burden due to one beneficiary’s need to 
cause unnecessary problems.” 
{¶ 28} In contrast to O’Diam’s explanation, which blamed David for all the 
delays and increased costs incurred by Carolee’s estate, the board found that many 
other factors had contributed to those delays and costs.  Those factors included 
newly discovered assets that required amendments to the inventory and schedule of 
assets, Martin’s delay in consenting to the sale of the house, Nick’s failure to return 
signed documents within a reasonable timeframe, O’Diam’s lack of knowledge 
about how to proceed without the consent of all beneficiaries, Judge O’Diam’s 
decisions to schedule the status conference and to recuse himself due to his outrage 
January Term, 2023 
 
11 
regarding David’s public comments, and O’Diam’s request for an extension of time 
for the final account so that she could seek attorney fees for the status conference. 
{¶ 29} The visiting judge ultimately approved O’Diam’s amended 
inventory and appraisal and authorized payment of her requested fees.  O’Diam 
filed the final distributive fiduciary account in October 2019, and checks drawn on 
an investment-company account were issued to all beneficiaries.  At that time, 
O’Diam’s office drafted a letter for Martin to send to David along with a copy of 
the distributive fiduciary account, a copy of Martin’s resignation as cotrustee of 
James’s trust, and two checks—one payable to David and the other payable to 
David as trustee of James’s trust.  The estate was closed without objection that 
December. 
F.  O’Diam’s Reaction to David’s Failure to Deposit the Distribution Checks 
{¶ 30} In February 2020, Martin emailed O’Diam’s paralegal to inform her 
that David had not deposited the two distribution checks that had been issued to 
him.  Martin told O’Diam that the envelope containing the checks was “probably 
at [David’s] house unopened because it ha[d] [her] return address on it.”  A few 
days later, David sent a text message to Martin stating that the investment company 
had contacted him about the checks and asking her whether she had resigned from 
James’s trust.  Martin emailed a screenshot of the text to O’Diam’s paralegal with 
the comment, “It confirms that he got the call from [the investment company] and 
knows I’m not a trustee.  It also confirms that he did not open his mail.” 
{¶ 31} The next day, O’Diam sent a letter to James’s coguardians—copying 
the magistrate presiding over James’s guardianship and Montgomery County Adult 
Protective Services (“APS”)—in which she alleged that David’s failure to deposit 
James’s distribution check into his trust account was “financially abusive to a ward 
of th[e] Court.”  Despite her paralegal’s knowledge that David had learned just one 
day earlier that the check was in his possession and that Martin had resigned as 
cotrustee, O’Diam wrote, “I fear that [David’s] inaction may be evidence of a 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO 
 
12 
breach of his fiduciary duties owed to James,” adding that James’s inheritance had 
“been effectively held hostage” by David.  She opined that it was “inexcusable [for 
David] to withhold funds from James” when in reality, David had not realized that 
the funds were in his possession and had never intentionally withheld them from 
James.  Ignoring the role that she and Martin had played in thrusting David into the 
position of sole trustee, O’Diam accused David of “choosing to ignore his duties as 
Trustee” and “directly contraven[ing]” his mother’s intention to ensure the 
provision of his brother’s care. 
{¶ 32} At her disciplinary hearing, O’Diam claimed that she had made the 
above allegations in connection with her duty as a mandatory reporter of abuse, 
neglect, or exploitation, see R.C. 5101.63(A) (requiring attorneys who have 
reasonable cause to believe that an adult is being abused, neglected, or exploited to 
immediately report that belief to the county department of job and family services).  
Although O’Diam did not believe that David had engaged in any criminal conduct, 
she knew that her letter would trigger a criminal investigation. 
{¶ 33} The board concluded that O’Diam “was not in a position to make an 
assessment of James’s situation or of David[’s] suitability to serve in a fiduciary 
capacity,” in part because she had had only minimal contact with David and had 
never met James.  In fact, if she had inquired about James’s financial condition at 
that time, she would have learned that his circumstances were not dire, because he 
had received money from Carolee’s nonprobate assets and had approximately 
$80,000 in cash on hand. 
{¶ 34} The board found that the facts set forth in O’Diam’s letter to James’s 
coguardians did not support a reasonable belief that James was being abused, 
neglected, or exploited and that the letter was “replete with half-truths” and failed 
to accurately portray O’Diam’s knowledge of the situation.  Moreover, the board 
found, the letter had caused additional anguish for David, who later received a 
“shaming” letter from James’s coguardian and faced a criminal investigation into 
January Term, 2023 
 
13 
his handling of James’s share of the probate estate.  Ultimately, the investigator 
concluded that “criminal charges would not be appropriate” and that “probate court 
would be a better arena [in which] to resolve the matter.” 
II.  FINDINGS OF MISCONDUCT 
{¶ 35} The board found that from the time O’Diam learned of David’s 
comments at the county commissioners’ meeting, he became the target of her 
written and verbal disparagement and abuse: she informed attorneys who had 
represented David that she was having issues with him, that he was being 
uncooperative, and that he had tried to make her family look bad; in the presence 
of his family at the status conference, she demeaned and humiliated David and 
accused him of singlehandedly costing the estate substantial amounts of money; 
and in their correspondence with Martin and the probate court, she and her paralegal 
repeatedly referred to David as being “problematic” and unjustly blamed him for 
all the delays and increased attorney fees incurred in the administration of the 
estate.  In addition, the board found that O’Diam had engaged in retaliatory, 
demeaning, and humiliating conduct in her questioning of David during the status 
conference. 
{¶ 36} Finding that O’Diam’s conduct had no substantial purpose other than 
to embarrass, harass, delay, or burden David, the board concluded that O’Diam 
violated Prof.Cond.R. 4.4(a).  The board also found that O’Diam’s conduct in 
intentionally triggering a criminal investigation and other humiliating 
consequences for David with misleading insinuations of financial abuse and 
mistreatment adversely reflected on her fitness to practice law in violation of 
Prof.Cond.R. 8.4(h). 
{¶ 37} We agree that O’Diam engaged in a pattern of misconduct that had 
no substantial purpose other than to embarrass or harass David in violation of 
Prof.Cond.R. 4.4(a).  In accord with the board’s report, we also find that O’Diam’s 
letter to James’s coguardians in which she mischaracterized David’s failure to 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO 
 
14 
deposit James’s distribution check—which by every indication was an innocent 
oversight that had just been brought to his attention—as “financially abusive” was 
sufficiently egregious to warrant finding an additional violation of Prof.Cond.R. 
8.4(h).  See Disciplinary Counsel v. Bricker, 137 Ohio St.3d 35, 2013-Ohio-3998, 
997 N.E.2d 500, ¶ 21.  We therefore adopt the board’s findings of misconduct. 
III.  SANCTION 
{¶ 38} When imposing sanctions for attorney misconduct, we consider all 
relevant factors, including the ethical duties that the attorney violated, the 
aggravating and mitigating factors listed in Gov.Bar R. V(13), and the sanctions 
imposed in similar cases. 
A.  Aggravating and Mitigating Factors 
{¶ 39} The board found that O’Diam had acted with a dishonest or selfish 
motive, engaged in a pattern of misconduct, and caused harm to a vulnerable victim.  
See Gov.Bar R. V(13)(B)(2), (3), and (8).  The board noted that O’Diam 
purportedly “regretted the manner” in which she had questioned David at the status 
conference.  It found, however, that her claims that her actions—including her letter 
to James’s coguardians copying the magistrate and APS—were not intended to 
embarrass, harass, burden, or retaliate against David manifested a refusal to 
acknowledge the wrongful nature of her conduct—hence a fourth aggravating 
factor.  See Gov.Bar R. V(13)(B)(7). 
{¶ 40} As for mitigating factors, the board found that O’Diam has no prior 
discipline and had exhibited a cooperative attitude toward the proceedings by 
submitting joint stipulations of fact and exhibits.  See Gov.Bar R. V(13)(C)(1) and 
(4).  In addition, the board found that O’Diam had submitted the testimony of three 
witnesses and letters from eight colleagues and friends attesting to her good 
character and/or reputation, some of whom spoke of the good work she had done 
for her clients, her church, and several nonprofit organizations.  See Gov.Bar R. 
V(13)(C)(5). 
January Term, 2023 
 
15 
B.  The Panel’s Recommended Sanction 
{¶ 41} In determining the proper sanction for O’Diam’s misconduct, the 
board considered six cases.  Two of those cases involved attorneys who, like 
O’Diam, were found to have violated Prof.Cond.R. 4.4(a).  But in contrast to 
O’Diam, the attorneys in those cases engaged in significant additional misconduct.  
See Toledo Bar Assn. v. Yoder, 162 Ohio St.3d 140, 2020-Ohio-4475, 164 N.E.3d 
405 (imposing a two-year suspension, with six months conditionally stayed, on an 
attorney who violated Prof.Cond.R. 4.4(a) by making false, threatening, and 
derogatory statements about opposing party and counsel and committed ten 
additional rule violations); Disciplinary Counsel v. Harmon, 158 Ohio St.3d 248, 
2019-Ohio-4171, 141 N.E.3d 142 (imposing a conditionally stayed two-year 
suspension on an attorney who violated Prof.Cond.R. 4.4(a) and six other rules by 
filing a frivolous lawsuit against his client’s daughter and friend to harass and 
embarrass them and attempt to collect an excessive fee). 
{¶ 42} The board found the number and egregiousness of the violations 
committed in this case to be most similar to those in Butler Cty. Bar Assn. v. Foster, 
99 Ohio St.3d 491, 2003-Ohio-4130, 794 N.E.2d 26, and Columbus Bar Assn. v. 
Jones, 166 Ohio St.3d 18, 2021-Ohio-4070, 181 N.E.3d 1178. 
{¶ 43} During antagonistic collection proceedings, Foster directed certain 
unprofessional emails and other correspondence to the older brother of a pro se 
litigant.  Subsequent communications from Foster described the brother and his 
behavior in offensive terms and made a lewd suggestion.  We found that Foster 
violated two provisions of the former Code of Professional Responsibility that are 
precursors to the rules that O’Diam has been found to have violated here.  See 
former DR 1-102(A)(6) (prohibiting a lawyer from engaging in conduct that 
adversely reflects on the lawyer’s fitness to practice law); former DR 7-102(A)(1) 
(prohibiting a lawyer from taking action on behalf of a client that the lawyer knows 
or should know would serve merely to harass or maliciously injure another).  We 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO 
 
16 
also found that Foster had engaged in conduct that was prejudicial to the 
administration of justice and that he had failed to seek the lawful objectives of a 
client through reasonably available and permissible means.  In the presence of two 
mitigating factors and just one aggravating factor, we found that Foster’s pattern of 
escalating abusive language warranted a conditionally stayed six-month 
suspension.  Foster at ¶ 4, 10. 
{¶ 44} Jones engaged in harassing conduct by incorporating two business 
entities using names deceptively similar to the brand names used by his estranged 
wife’s companion and by leaving a threatening message on the companion’s 
voicemail.  After the companion filed a disciplinary grievance against him, Jones 
sent his then ex-wife hostile text messages threatening to retaliate against the 
companion and stating that the companion’s “false” allegations against Jones had 
threatened their family’s security.  Id. at ¶ 7.  In his response to the grievance, Jones 
falsely stated that he had legitimate purposes for incorporating the businesses and 
attempted to rationalize his harassing conduct, although he later admitted that the 
purpose of his actions was to retaliate against the companion for dating his ex-wife. 
{¶ 45} We found that Jones had engaged in dishonest conduct, that he had 
made false statements of material fact in connection with his disciplinary matter, 
and that his text messages to his ex-wife had adversely reflected on his fitness to 
practice law.  In light of significant mitigating factors—including Jones’s clean 
disciplinary record, his eventual cooperation in the disciplinary process, his 
acknowledgment of his misconduct, his submission of good-character and 
reputation evidence, and the ongoing treatment of his mental-health and substance-
abuse disorders—we imposed a conditionally stayed six-month suspension for 
Jones’s misconduct.  Jones at ¶ 11, 14, 19.  We also ordered Jones to serve a one-
year period of monitored probation.  Id. at ¶ 19. 
{¶ 46} In this case, the board recommends that we impose a conditionally 
stayed six-month suspension for O’Diam’s misconduct, in accord with the 
January Term, 2023 
 
17 
sanctions we imposed in Jones and Foster.  The board acknowledged that we 
imposed the same sanction on Judge O’Diam even though his conduct at the status 
conference was more egregious than O’Diam’s and, as a judge, he is “ ‘held to 
higher standards of integrity and ethical conduct than attorneys or other persons not 
invested with the public trust,’ ” Disciplinary Counsel v. O’Neill, 103 Ohio St.3d 
204, 2004-Ohio-4704, 815 N.E.2d 286, ¶ 57, quoting Shaman, Lubet, & Alfini, 
Judicial Conduct and Ethics 1-2 (3d Ed.2000).  Nevertheless, the board concluded 
that a comparable sanction was warranted in this case because O’Diam had engaged 
in a pattern of retaliatory misconduct that extended beyond the confines of the status 
conference. 
{¶ 47} After David made his comments to the county commissioners, 
O’Diam claimed that David had maligned her ethics in her own correspondence 
with David’s attorneys before she and her father berated him at the status 
conference in front of all his siblings.  Then, in a public filing in support of her 
requested attorney fees, she dubbed David “the problematic beneficiary” and like 
her paralegal before her, blamed David alone for the delay and increased expense 
incurred by the estate.  Finally, O’Diam’s misconduct culminated in the letter she 
sent to James’s coguardians, the magistrate presiding over the guardianship 
proceeding, and APS in which she intentionally triggered a criminal investigation 
by making misleading insinuations that David had financially abused his disabled 
brother. 
{¶ 48} On these facts, we agree that a six-month suspension stayed in its 
entirety on the condition that O’Diam engage in no further misconduct is the 
appropriate sanction in this case. 
IV.  CONCLUSION 
{¶ 49} Accordingly, Brittany Dawn O’Diam is suspended from the practice 
of law in Ohio for six months, with the suspension stayed in its entirety on the 
condition that she commit no further misconduct.  If O’Diam fails to comply with 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO 
 
18 
the condition of the stay, the stay will be lifted and she will serve the full six-month 
suspension.  Costs are taxed to O’Diam. 
Judgment accordingly. 
KENNEDY, C.J., and FISCHER, DEWINE, DONNELLY, STEWART, BRUNNER, 
and DETERS, JJ., concur. 
_________________ 
Joseph M. Caligiuri, Disciplinary Counsel, and Lia J. Meehan and Audrey 
E. Varwig, Assistant Disciplinary Counsel, for relator. 
Kegler, Brown, Hill & Ritter and Christopher J. Weber; and Peterson 
Conners, L.L.P., and Rasheeda Khan, for respondent. 
_________________