[Until this opinion appears in the Ohio Official Reports advanc e 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 pu blished in an advance sheet of the Ohio Official Reports. Readers are req uested to promptly notify the Reporter of Decisions, Supreme Court of Ohio, 65 South Front Street, Columbus, Ohio 43215, of any typographic al or other formal errors in the opini on, in order that corrections m ay be made before the opi nion is published.

S LIP O PINION N O

. 2020-O HIO -4775

T OLEDO B AR A SSOCIATION v . Y ODER

. [Until this opinion appears in t he Ohio Official Reports advanc e 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.)

O N C ERTIFIED R EPORT by the Board of Professiona l Conduct of the Supreme Court, No. 2019-030.

______________ Per Curiam. {¶ 1} Respondent, Thomas Alan Yoder, of Holland, Ohio, Attorney Registration No. 0020792, was admitte d to the practice of law i n Ohio in 1977. {¶ 2} In a three-count amended compla int filed on September 27, 2019, relator, Toledo Bar Association, charged Yoder with multiple ru le violations arising from (1) allegedly false statements he made regarding a magistrate,S UPREME C OURT OF O HIO

2 opposing counsel, and opposing par ties in two separate client m atters and (2) threatening letters he sent to two witnesses whom he intended t o 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 partie s’ stipulations regarding the testimony of five additional witnesses in lieu of live testimony, and admitted more than 100 exhibits. Following the hearing, the pa nel unanimously dismissed six of the alleged ru le violations. The panel issued a report finding that Yoder committed many of the alleged rule violations, dismissin g 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 reinsta tement. The board adopted the panel’s findings of fact, conclusions of law, and r ecommended sanction. Yoder objects, arguing that the board’s findings of fact and misconduct are not supported by the record and that the recommended sancti on 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 overr ule Yoder’s objections and suspend him from th e practice of law for two yea rs 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 effor t to obtain custody of their minor grandchildren in the Lucas County Court of Common Pleas, Juvenile Division. Codi Dowe, a cousin of the ch ildren’s father,January Term, 2020

3 sought to intervene in the proceeding and filed an emergency cu stody motion. The magistrate awarded temporary custody of the children to Dow e. 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 Threatenin g Statements Regarding Dowe {¶ 6} As the litigation wore on, Yode r 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 t he 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 cont radict[ed]” Dowe’s “lies and fabrications” at the emergency custody hearing . In a January 10, 2017 letter to Dowe, he claime d 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 tha t [Dowe had] some serious, seri ous mental problems, starting with [her] bog us claims about the [grandpare nts].” {¶ 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 re ply e-mail, Yoder denied knowledge of any rape, again told Dowe she had “some ser ious, 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 ter minate Dowe’s visitation wit h the children, Yoder alleged that Do we’s unfounded a llegations about the grandparents

1. Based on questions Yoder asked Dowe at his disciplinary hear ing, the board found that Yoder had misconstrued Dowe’s statement about the rape and leapt to t he conclusion that she was blaming him for the rape and was accusing him of covering it up

.S UPREME C OURT OF O HIO

4 had caused great emotional harm to one of the children. He als o reiterated his claims that Dowe was delusional, had serious mental problems, a nd needed professional help. And in May 2017 letters to the GAL, Yoder i ndicated that things “ha[d] gotten to be real personal between [the magistrat e], Mrs. Dowe and myself” and claimed that Dowe ha d a “lack of ability to see rea lty [sic].” {¶ 9} In an October 2017 letter, Yoder told Dowe, a nurse, that he ha d contemplated reporting Dowe’s actions to the Ohio Board of Nurs ing; he also threatened her financial well-being. He later wrote to the Mic higan and Ohio boards of nursing, aggressively urging them to investigate Dowe ’s mental

condition and fitness to be a nur se—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 o f 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 so me serious issues that very well could affect her functioning as a nurse.” He cl aimed 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 heari ng “to determine Mrs. Dowe’s mental capacity” and suggested that “she may be a d anger to her patients and those that work w ith her.” He made additional all egations in a June 2018 letter to the department, cla iming that Dowe had exhibited “bizarre visions of paranoia” and that a conversa tion that she reportedly had ha d with the children’s GAL “only exists in he r mind.” Yoder made similar a llegations against

Dowe in a series of four letters he sent to the Ohio Board of N ursing between July 2018 and February 2019. {¶ 11} The board found that Yoder had no factual basis to support the allegations he had asserted aga inst Dowe. Although the board a cknowledged thatJanuary Term, 2020

5 Dowe may have been misinformed about background information in the underlying custody case, neither the panel nor any of the witne sses 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 th at Yoder’s admitted goal was to remove Dowe from the children’s lives and “get [her] off [his] butt” and that his allegati ons against her were unfounded , the board also determined that Yoder had repor ted Dowe to professional regulat ory organizations solely to obtain a n advantage in a civil matter. Yoder’s False and Undignified St atements about th e Magistrate {¶ 12} In July 2017, Yoder objected to the magistrate’s order regardin g GAL fees and filed an affidavit of prejudice and bias against t he magistrate. In that document, Yoder declared that the magistrate’s ruling on D owe’s September 2015 emergency custody motion “was the most absolutely insane d ecision [he had] ever encountered in almo st 40 years” and was not what “a n ormal, 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 i mmediate danger at the grandparents’ home. Yoder claimed that there was absolutely no basis for removing the children from the home and that at subse quent hearings, the magistrate personally attacked him instead of admitting tha t his actions with regard to the emergency custody motion were “100% wrong.” Base d on the magistrate’s alleged lies, “incredible arrogance,” “taunts, thr eats and lectures,” and “vendetta” against him, Yoder suggested that the magistrate could not be objective and opined that either he should voluntarily remove h imself from the case or the affidavit of prej udice and bias should proceed to a full hearing. {¶ 14} We note that the magistrate testified that based on the evidenc e presented at the emergency cus tody hearing, he had found probab le cause toS UPREME C OURT OF O HIO

6 believe that the children were at some risk of imminent harm th at 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 g randstanding or dramatics, Yoder’s personal att acks on Dowe had crossed the lin e. 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 magistrat e’s increasing anger

with Yoder’s treatment of Dowe w ould 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 A ffairs. And at his disciplinary hearing, Yoder testified that he stood by ever ything he had said about the magistrate. {¶ 16} The panel found that there was a legitimate disagreement regard ing the magistrate’s findings in the emergency custody hearing, but the panel also found the magistrate’s testimony at Yoder’s disciplinary hearin g to be “at all times completely credible.” The board determined that Yoder ha d no reasonable basis in fact to allege that the magistrate had lied and that h is statements about the magistrate’s conduct were undignif ied or discourteous and degra ding to the

tribunal. See Disciplinary Counsel v. Gardner , 99 Ohio St.3d 416, 2003-Ohio4048, 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) (pr ohibiting a lawyer from present ing, participatingJanuary Term, 2020

7 in presenting, or threatening to present professional-misconduc t allegations solely to obtain an advantage in a c ivil matter) and 4.4(a) (prohibiti ng 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 viola ted Prof.Cond.R. 3.3(a)(1) (proh ibiting a lawyer from knowingly making a false statement of fact or law to a tri bunal) 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, untruthf ul, and derogatory stateme nts regarding both the magistrate and Dow e violated Prof.Cond.R. 3.1 (prohibiting a la wyer from asserting or contro verting an issue in a proceeding unless there is a basis in law or fact for doing s o that is not frivolous), 4.1(a) (prohibiting a lawyer, while representing a client, from knowingly making a false stateme nt of material fact or law to a third person), 8.4(c) (prohibiting a lawyer from engaging in conduct involving dishonesty, fraud, deceit, or misrepresentati on), and 8.4(d) (prohibiting a lawyer from engaging in conduct that is prej udicial to the administration o f 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 c ontract. He became concerned that the mortgage was not being paid and that his pay ments 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 th em, and the seller engaged Yoder to represent him. {¶ 20} Thereafter, in two letters to Y oder, Zhang advised him that the

Thomases would file suit if Yode r did not provide certain docum ents. Yoder responded in writing, stating, “I don’t know who you think you are, but do notS UPREME C OURT OF O HIO

8 ever threaten me or doubt when I tell you something,” and “Do n ot, 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 occasio ns, he accused Zhang in writing of “churning” the Thomases to increase his legal fee s. During disciplinary proceedings, Yoder suggested in a letter to relato r 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 s tated that “Plaintiff’s counsel apparently does not understand the land co ntract 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 misundersta nding about a vendor being able to transfer title to real estate. However you are to [sic] stupid to know how st upid you are and your [recent letters] prove that once again.” In the same lett er, he wrote, “[Y]our letter of January 5, 2015 was so s tupid, I sent it back to you as I didn’t want it in my file,” and he closed t he letter with “No m ore idiotic letter s!!!” {¶ 22} Zhang stopped representing the Thomases in March 2017. Several months later, Yoder sent the Thom ases a note stating, “Zhang li ed to you so that he could file the lawsuit. * * * You paid him for absolutely n othing! 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 t hat Zhang was a “mentally ill attorney advising an idiot” and stated that “[n]e ther [sic] has understood what is going on from the start.” He claimed that h e had “tried to carry on an intelligent conversations [sic] with [Zhang], but l ike everyone elseJanuary Term, 2020

9 [Yoder] had no luck.” In addition, he asserted that his problem s over the prior seven years all related back to “Zhang and his inability to und erstand basic principles of real estate law and his desire to mislead the Tho mas’ [sic] to churn them for attorney’s fees.” {¶ 23} The board found that Yoder’s assertions that Lisa Thomas is a l iar, that Zhang was mentally incompetent, and that Zhang had lied to the Thomases to charge an unreasonable fee were w ithout basis in fact or law an d 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 Municipa l Court. The municipal court gr anted Thomas’s unopposed motion to dismiss, on the ground that the complaint r aised the same facts and issues that were pending in the common pleas court ca se. The common pleas court later issued a decisi on in Thomas’s favor, and that judgment was affirmed on appeal. The board found that Yoder’s municipal-cou rt filing was both frivolous and prejudicial to t he administra tion 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 Dow e’s father, Yoder stated his intention to subpoena both of Dow e’s parents to testify at Yode r’s upcoming disciplinary hearing. Yoder explained, “Your daughter is sched uled to appear and will answer my questions under oa th regarding her conduct as it relates to the * * * children. These include intentionally lying to the court and intentionally violating court orders.” After e xplaining that Dowe had previo usly stated that her parents had transported the ch ildren following Dowe’s visitatio n—contrary to the grandparents’ claims—Yoder state d, “Since you will put [sic] un der oath and subject [sic] to the laws of perjury should you lie, may I resp ectfully suggest that you retain an attorney to advise y ou as to the ramification of your testimony?”S UPREME C OURT OF O HIO

10 {¶ 26} In September 2019, Yoder sent the Thomases a similar letter stating that he had filed a res ponse to Lisa Thomas’s grievance and had attached documentation “to show that [the Thomases had] consistently lie d 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 lette rs served no substantial purpos e other than to strike fear in, embarrass, harass, or burden the recipients with the cost of hiring counsel to addre ss Yoder’s inappropriate threats and innuendo. Consequently, the board found that Yoder’s conduct violated Pro f.Cond.R. 4.4(a).

RECOMMENDED SANCTION {¶ 28} When imposing sanctions for atto rney misconduct, we consider al l relevant factors, including the e thical 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 refus ed 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 crea ting fear, threatening Dowe’s livelihood, unnecessarily increasing the costs in what should have been unc omplicated legal matters, and ultimately causing Dowe to withdraw from the under lying custody

case. See Gov.Bar R. V(13)(B)(8). The board also noted that Yoder had m ade numerous inappropriate s tatements about relator’s counsel. For example, in his posthearing brief, he stated that relator “will sink to any dep th 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 h is complaint.” He further sugg ested that counsel

“ has never read any of the pleading, or Em ails nor has he looked at any of theJanuary 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 not ed that Yoder had demonstrated a high degree of obduracy and had remained com mitted to the proposition that his actions wer e unassailable because decision s 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 a ttorney 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 prohi biting dishonesty, fraud, deceit, or misrepresentation, “the attorney will be actu ally suspended from the practice of law for an a ppropriate 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 la w without interruption”). {¶ 32} The board also considered cases i n which we imposed sanctions ranging from a fully stayed suspension to an indefinite suspens ion for similar rule violations involving the making of false statements to courts a nd 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 impose d a fully stayed two-year suspension on an attorney with an unblemi shed 40-year career who falsely informed a magistrate that his elderly clien t (who was also a close personal friend) had been k idnapped and later filed a fri volous lawsuit in an attempt to collect his fees. The board distinguished the facts of this case fromS UPREME C OURT OF O HIO

12 Harmon on the ground that none of Yode r’s acts of misconduct were tak en in the heat and passion of the moment. Instead of expressing his disa greements on the merits of the custody and land-contract cases at issue in an et hical fashion, Yoder engaged in a deliberate pattern of false and inappropriate writ ten 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 stateme nts to a court and others—misco nduct that, like Yoder’s misconduct, violate d 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 attorne y who, among other things, had made false and disrespectful statements regar ding two judges in affidavits of disqualification, accused two judges and a prosec utor of engaging in ex parte communications about pe nding cases, issued a subpoena to the wife of the judge presiding over his client’s case in an attempt to dis qualify the judge, and showed no remorse for his conduct. Expressing concern that und erlying mentalhealth 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 we re intended to embarrass, haras s, and unnecessarily burden opposing couns el and parties, the board co ncluded that Yoder’s misconduct warrants actual time out from the practice o f law. After weighing the applicable aggravating and mitigating factors and precedent, the

board recommends that Yoder be s uspended from the practice of l aw for two years with one year stayed on the condition that he refrain fro m furtherJanuary Term, 2020

13 misconduct. In addition, the board recommends that his reinsta tement be conditioned on proof that he has submitted to an OLAP evaluatio n and complied with any recommendations ari sing 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 th ose 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’ decisi ons in those cases

were correct. The issue is how Yoder conducted himself in cont entious litigation and in the face of adverse rulings. {¶ 37} In his objections, Yoder categorically denies that he has commi tted any ethical violations. He maintains that all his statements a bout 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 p roceeding has lied or exhibited bias against him. He further contends that the al legedly erroneous rulings of the courts and the allegedly poor treatment he recei ved from others in the underlying litigation somehow justify his “bad attitude” an d 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 Y oder’s testimony and the conflicting evidence from witnesses who were involved i n the underlying custody litigation, including Dowe, the GALs, a case worker, th e magistrate, and the trial-court judge in the custody proceedings. Furthermore, the panel had the opportunity to assess Lisa Thomas’s credibility as she testifie d regarding her interactions with Yoder throughout the course of the land-contr act case. The findings of fact and misconduct set forth above plainly demonst rate that the panel found the testimony of those witne sses to be more credible than that of Yoder.S UPREME C OURT OF O HIO

14 {¶ 39} We typically defer to the panel’s credibility determinations un less the record weighs heavily against those findings because the pa nel 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 d eterminations. On the contrary, our independent rev iew of the record confirms tha t the findings of

fact and misconduct set forth a bove 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 a re performing incompetently—in a concise, rational, and professi onal manner. Instead, he has lashed out at a magistrate in an undignified and discourteous fas hion and degraded the tribunal for granting what he considered to be an erroneous and absurd emergency custody o rder—though

he never moved the court to set aside the order. He has also m ade numerous false and inflammatory statements about the magistrate, Dowe, Lisa Th omas, and Zhang in correspondence with them and with others, threatened D owe’s financial well-being, and made false and de rogatory statements to profess ional-licensing boards about her conduct, veracity , and mental health for the s ole purpose of gaining an advantage in the custody case. Based on the foregoi ng, we overrule Yoder’s objections to the board’s findings of fact and miscondu ct 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 sanctio n is “unduly harsh” because it is bas ed on “totally fabricated facts ” and

“unsubstantiated conclusions.” B ut we have already found that the board’s findings of fact and misconduct are supported by clear and conv incing evidence,January Term, 2020

15 and Yoder has neither offered an y precedent to support his clai m nor suggested any alternative sanction. The board’s recommended sanction of a two-year suspension, with one year conditionally stayed, might be an app ropriate sanction for Yoder’s extensive pattern of false allegations, his repeate d insistence that he stands by every word of those a llegations, and his refusal to a cknowledge that he has done anything wrong—if his misconduct had stopped there. B ut Yoder has continued to levy false and inflammatory accusations with littl e or no basis in fact against anyone who disagrees with him—including relator’s couns el and the member of the board responsible f or drafting the report in this disciplinary proceeding. Consequently, we believe that a more severe sancti on 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 f or two years with the final six months conditionally stayed, and we agree that hi s reinstatement to the practice of law shall be conditioned on his completion of a n OLAP evaluation and compliance with any recomme ndations 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 co ndition that he engage in no further misconduct. If Yoder violates the conditi on of the stay, the stay will be lifted and he will serve the entire two-year suspe nsion. 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 an d that he has complied with any recommendations a rising from that evaluation. Costs are taxed

to Yoder. Judgment accordingly.

O’C ONNOR , C.J., and K ENNEDY , F RENCH , F ISCHER , D E W INE , D ONNELLY , and S TEWART , JJ., concur.

_________________S UPREME C OURT OF O HIO

16 Patricia B. Fugée; Robert J. Ba hret; and Joseph P. Dawson, Bar Counsel,

for relator. Thomas A. Yoder, pro se.

_________________