[Until this opinion appears in the Ohio Official Reports advance sheets, it may be cited as 

Disciplinary Counsel v. Mecklenborg, Slip Opinion No. 2014-Ohio-1908.] 

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. 2014-OHIO-1908 

DISCIPLINARY COUNSEL v. MECKLENBORG. 

[Until this opinion appears in the Ohio Official Reports advance sheets, 

it may be cited as Disciplinary Counsel v. Mecklenborg, 

Slip Opinion No. 2014-Ohio-1908.] 

Attorney misconduct—Conduct adversely reflecting on fitness to practice law—

Public reprimand. 

(No. 2012-1700—Submitted December 11, 2013—Decided May 8, 2014.) 

ON CERTIFIED REPORT by the Board of Commissioners on Grievances and 

Discipline of the Supreme Court, No. 12-011. 

____________________ 

Per Curiam. 

{¶ 1} Respondent, Robert Paul Mecklenborg of Cincinnati, Ohio, 

Attorney Registration No. 0021203, was admitted to the Ohio bar in 1978. 

{¶ 2} On February 13, 2012, relator, disciplinary counsel, filed a 

complaint alleging that Mecklenborg had been charged with operating a vehicle 

while under the influence of alcohol (“OWI”) and subsequently made false 

declarations about the pendency of that action on his application to renew his 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO

2

driver’s license. In June 2012, the parties entered into a consent-to-discipline 

agreement pursuant to BCGD Proc.Reg. 11 and Gov.Bar R. V(11)(A)(3)(c) in 

which they stipulated that the operative facts as alleged in the complaint are true, 

that Mecklenborg’s conduct violated Prof.Cond.R. 8.4(c) (prohibiting a lawyer 

from engaging in conduct involving dishonesty, fraud, deceit, or 

misrepresentation) and 8.4(h) (prohibiting a lawyer from engaging in conduct that 

adversely reflects on the lawyer’s fitness to practice law) and that the appropriate 

sanction for his misconduct is a public reprimand. 

{¶ 3} The Board of Commissioners on Grievances and Discipline 

recommended that we adopt the consent-to-discipline agreement, but we rejected 

the recommended sanction and remanded the matter for consideration of a harsher 

sanction. Disciplinary Counsel v. Mecklenborg, ___ Ohio St.3d ___, 2013-Ohio1536, 986 N.E.2d 25. On remand, the parties entered into stipulations of fact and 

misconduct and submitted stipulated exhibits, including 19 letters from his clients 

and colleagues attesting to Mecklenborg’s good character. The only witness to 

testify at the panel hearing was Mecklenborg. The parties jointly recommended a 

six-month suspension, all stayed. 

{¶ 4} After the hearing, the panel issued a report adopting the parties’ 

stipulations of fact and misconduct and recommending that Mecklenborg be 

suspended from the practice of law for six months, all stayed on the condition that 

he commit no further misconduct. 

{¶ 5} On further review, however, the full board concluded that 

Mecklenborg had not engaged in an intentional act of dishonesty, fraud, deceit, or 

misrepresentation. Therefore, the board voted to amend the panel’s findings of 

fact and conclusions of law to dismiss the charge alleging a violation of 

Prof.Cond.R. 8.4(c), adopt the panel’s remaining findings of fact and conclusions 

of law, and unanimously recommended that he be publicly reprimanded for his 

misconduct. 
January Term, 2014 

3 

{¶ 6} For the reasons that follow, we adopt the board’s findings of fact, 

conclusions of law, and recommended sanction. 

Misconduct 

{¶ 7} Mecklenborg had been arrested in Indiana and charged with OWI 

in April 2011. A blood sample obtained pursuant to Indiana’s implied-consent 

law indicated that Mecklenborg’s blood-alcohol level was .097 percent. At his 

arraignment, his driving privileges in Indiana were suspended because he had 

refused to take a roadside breath test. 

{¶ 8} Four days after his arrest and arraignment in Indiana, Mecklenborg 

appeared at an Ohio Bureau of Motor Vehicles licensing agency and applied to 

renew his expired Ohio driver’s license. As part of the application process, 

Mecklenborg signed a form containing preprinted statements that his driving 

privileges had not been suspended, revoked, or canceled and that he did not have 

pending citations for violations of any motor-vehicle laws or ordinances in Ohio 

or any other state. 

{¶ 9} In September 2011, Mecklenborg was charged with, entered a nocontest plea to, and was found guilty of a single violation of R.C. 4507.17 

(prohibiting any person whose license is suspended or canceled from applying for 

or receiving a new license during the suspension or cancellation). The penalty for 

this misdemeanor violation was a $50 fine. 

{¶ 10} The parties stipulated that the operative facts as alleged in the 

complaint are true and that Mecklenborg’s conduct violated Prof.Cond.R. 8.4(c) 

and 8.4(h). The parties further stipulated that Mecklenborg acted on the advice of 

counsel when he sought to renew his Ohio driver’s license while his Indiana OWI 

case was pending and that he failed to read the entire application before signing it. 

He testified that he was emotionally upset and embarrassed about the 

circumstances of his arrest, the publicity it garnered, and the reactions of his 

family and the public. In response to the media attention, Mecklenborg tendered 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO

4

his resignation to the Speaker of the Ohio House of Representatives, effective 

August 2, 2011. 

{¶ 11} The panel adopted the parties’ stipulations of fact and misconduct 

and recommended sanction. But the board found that in light of the facts that 

Mecklenborg had sought and acted on the advice of counsel and signed a 

preprinted form provided by the Bureau of Motor Vehicles, his conduct did not 

constitute an intentional act of dishonesty, fraud, deceit, or misrepresentation. On 

these amended facts, the board voted to dismiss the charge alleging a violation of 

Prof.Cond.R. 8.4(c), but adopt the panel’s finding that Mecklenborg’s conduct 

violated Prof.Cond.R. 8.4(h), and recommended a public reprimand. 

{¶ 12} Having thoroughly reviewed the record, including the transcript of 

Mecklenborg’s testimony at the panel hearing, we adopt the board’s findings of 

fact and misconduct and dismiss the charge alleging a violation of Prof.Cond.R. 

8.4(c). 

Sanction 

{¶ 13} When imposing sanctions for attorney misconduct, we consider 

relevant factors, including the ethical duties that the lawyer violated and the 

sanctions imposed in similar cases. Stark Cty. Bar Assn. v. Buttacavoli, 96 Ohio 

St.3d 424, 2002-Ohio-4743, 775 N.E.2d 818, ¶ 16. In making a final 

determination, we also weigh evidence of the aggravating and mitigating factors 

listed in BCGD Proc.Reg. 10(B). Disciplinary Counsel v. Broeren, 115 Ohio 

St.3d 473, 2007-Ohio-5251, 875 N.E.2d 935, ¶ 21. 

{¶ 14} As mitigating factors, the parties have stipulated and the panel and 

board have found that Mecklenborg (1) has no prior disciplinary record, (2) did 

not act with a selfish or dishonest motive, (3) has made a full and free disclosure 

and demonstrated a cooperative attitude in the disciplinary proceedings, (4) has 

good character and a reputation for significant involvement in the community and 

is committed to public service, and (5) has been fined for his violation of R.C. 
January Term, 2014 

5 

4507.17 and has voluntarily resigned from the Ohio House of Representatives as 

the result of his misconduct. See BCGD Proc.Reg. 10(B)(2)(a), (b), (d), (e), and 

(f). No aggravating factors are present. 

{¶ 15} In response to our remand order, and based upon their stipulation 

that Mecklenborg violated both Prof.Cond.R. 8.4(c) and 8.4(h), the parties 

recommended that we impose a six-month fully stayed suspension for 

Mecklenborg’s misconduct. Having voted to dismiss the charge alleging a 

violation of Prof.Cond.R. 8.4(c), however, the board unanimously recommends 

that we publicly reprimand Mecklenborg for his OWI and negligent 

misrepresentation of facts on his application to renew his driver’s license. 

{¶ 16} We have publicly reprimanded attorneys who have notarized 

documents without having witnessed the signatures—conduct that is arguably 

more egregious than Mecklenborg’s negligent misrepresentation to the Bureau of 

Motor Vehicles. See, e.g., Cleveland Bar Assn. v. Russell, 114 Ohio St.3d 171, 

2007-Ohio-3603, 870 N.E.2d 1164 (publicly reprimanding a lawyer who 

notarized two deeds without having witnessed the grantors’ signatures); 

Disciplinary Counsel v. Simon, 71 Ohio St.3d 437, 644 N.E.2d 309 (1994) 

(publicly reprimanding a lawyer who notarized the signatures of two grantors on a 

deed, though neither signature had been affixed in the lawyer’s presence). 

Moreover, a panel of 12 appellate court judges has publicly reprimanded a justice 

of this court who was convicted of driving while under the influence of alcohol. 

In re Complaint Against Resnick, 108 Ohio St.3d 160, 2005-Ohio-6800, 842 

N.E.2d 31. Thus, we agree that a public reprimand is the appropriate sanction for 

Mecklenborg’s misconduct. 

{¶ 17} Accordingly, we publicly reprimand Robert Paul Mecklenborg. 

Costs are taxed to Mecklenborg. 

Judgment accordingly. 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO

6

PFEIFER, O’DONNELL, LANZINGER, KENNEDY, FRENCH, and O’NEILL, JJ., 

concur. 

O’CONNOR, C.J., dissents and would follow the recommendation of the 

panel to impose a six-month suspension, all stayed. 

____________________ 

Scott J. Drexel, Disciplinary Counsel, and Joseph M. Caligiuri, Chief 

Assistant Disciplinary Counsel, for relator. 

Montgomery, Rennie & Jonson and George D. Jonson, for respondent. 

________________________