[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-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) (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 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 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. 

_________________