[Cite as Butler Cty. Bar Assn. v. Minamyer, 129 Ohio St.3d 433, 2011-Ohio-3642.] 

BUTLER COUNTY BAR ASSOCIATION v. MINAMYER. 

[Cite as Butler Cty. Bar Assn. v. Minamyer, 

129 Ohio St.3d 433, 2011-Ohio-3642.] 

Attorneys at law — Misconduct — Failure to inform client of lack of malpractice 

insurance — Neglect of legal matter — Failure to communicate with client 

— Dishonest statements to client — Mental-health issues as mitigating — 

One-year stayed suspension. 

(No. 2009-2284 — Submitted March 22, 2011 — Decided July 28, 2011.) 

ON CERTIFIED REPORT by the Board of Commissioners on Grievances and 

Discipline of the Supreme Court, No. 09-044. 

__________________ 

Per Curiam. 

{¶ 1} Respondent, William Eric Minamyer of Loveland, Ohio, Attorney 

Registration No. 0015677, was admitted to the practice of law in Ohio in 1979.1

 

In June 2009, relator, Butler County Bar Association, filed a four-count complaint 

charging respondent with multiple violations of the Code of Professional 

Responsibility and the Rules of Professional Conduct.2

{¶ 2} Respondent initially cooperated in relator’s investigation. 

Although he was served with the complaint, he did not file an answer or otherwise 

respond to it. A master commissioner appointed by the Board of Commissioners 

 

1. It appears that respondent is also licensed to practice law in Kentucky. 

2. Relator charged respondent with misconduct under applicable rules for acts occurring before 

and after February 1, 2007, the effective date of the Rules of Professional Conduct, which 

supersede the Disciplinary Rules of the Code of Professional Responsibility. Although both the 

former and current rules are cited for the same acts, the allegations comprise a single continuing 

ethical violation. Disciplinary Counsel v. Freeman, 119 Ohio St.3d 330, 2008-Ohio-3836, 894 

N.E.2d 31, ¶ 1, fn. 1. 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO

2 

on Grievances and Discipline granted relator’s motion for default, making 

findings of fact and misconduct and recommending that respondent be suspended 

from the practice of law for one year with one year of probation following 

reinstatement, including the appointment of a monitor in accordance with 

Gov.Bar R. V(9)(B). The board adopted the master commissioner’s findings of 

fact and conclusions of law but recommended a two-year suspension with the 

second year stayed for monitored probation. This court issued an order to show 

cause why the recommendation of the board should not be accepted by the court. 

{¶ 3} Respondent responded to the show-cause order, seeking leave to 

introduce mitigating evidence that he sustained a traumatic brain injury while 

serving in the Navy Reserve Judge Advocate General’s Corps and that he suffered 

from posttraumatic-stress disorder (“PTSD”) as a result of his active military 

service. He also objected to the board’s findings of fact. 

{¶ 4} After oral argument, we remanded the matter to the board to 

receive and consider evidence regarding respondent’s health conditions, and the 

board appointed a panel to comply with our order. As a result of those 

proceedings, the board issued a revised recommendation that respondent be 

suspended for two years with 18 months stayed on conditions, and respondent has 

once again filed objections. 

{¶ 5} We adopt the board’s findings of fact and misconduct because the 

record clearly and convincingly demonstrates that respondent (1) failed to notify 

his client that he did not carry malpractice insurance, (2) neglected that client’s 

legal matter, (3) failed to communicate with the client regarding the status of her 

case, and (4) led the client to believe that her case was still pending after it had 

been dismissed for failure to prosecute. Because we accord greater weight to 

respondent’s mitigating mental-health issues, however, we suspend respondent 

from the practice of law for one year but stay the entire suspension on conditions. 

Misconduct 
January Term, 2011 

3

{¶ 6} During its investigation, relator deposed respondent and the 

grievant. The deposition testimony demonstrates that in April 2006, respondent 

filed a complaint on the grievant’s behalf in the Butler County Court of Common 

Pleas. Although respondent received notice of and participated in a mediation 

session and unsuccessfully opposed defendant’s counsel’s motion for leave to 

withdraw as counsel, he failed to submit a pretrial statement or appear at the 

scheduled pretrial on August 30, 2007. And in September 2007, the trial court 

granted the defendant’s unopposed motion to dismiss the complaint. 

{¶ 7} When respondent learned of the dismissal, he advised the grievant 

that she did not need to appear for trial, without explaining that her case had been 

dismissed. From September to December 2007, when the grievant called 

respondent to discuss her case, he told her that he would send her something in 

the mail, but he never did. In December 2007, the grievant received a statement 

of court costs due and learned for the first time that her complaint had been 

dismissed. 

{¶ 8} Respondent admitted that he had failed to advise the grievant that 

he did not carry malpractice insurance, but advanced various excuses for his 

neglect, including the misdirection of his mail by the court, an office move, and 

an illness. He offered no documentary evidence to corroborate his testimony. 

{¶ 9} In its December 18, 2009 report granting relator’s motion for 

default and in its December 9, 2010 report on remand, the board found that 

respondent had violated DR 1-104 and Prof.Cond.R. 1.4(c) (both requiring a 

lawyer to inform the client if the lawyer does not maintain professional-liability 

insurance), DR 6-101(A)(3) and Prof.Cond.R. 1.3 (both requiring a lawyer to act 

with reasonable diligence in representing a client), Prof.Cond.R. 1.4(a)(3) 

(requiring a lawyer to keep the client reasonably informed about the status of a 

matter), Prof.Cond.R. 1.4(a)(4) (requiring a lawyer to comply as soon as 

practicable with reasonable requests for information from the client), and DR 1-
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO

4 

102(A)(4) and Prof.Cond.R. 8.4(c) (both prohibiting a lawyer from engaging in 

conduct involving dishonesty, fraud, deceit, or misrepresentation). We adopt 

these findings of fact and misconduct. 

Sanction 

{¶ 10} 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 Section 10(B) of the Rules and Regulations Governing Procedure on 

Complaints and Hearings Before the Board of Commissioners on Grievances and 

Discipline (“BCGD Proc.Reg.”). Disciplinary Counsel v. Broeren, 115 Ohio 

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

{¶ 11} As aggravating factors, the board found that respondent had 

committed multiple ethical violations, had harmed his client, and had failed to 

cooperate in the disciplinary proceedings and that his failure to notify his client 

that her case had been dismissed was deceitful. See BCGD Proc.Reg. 

10(B)(1)(d), (e), and (h). Although respondent testified that he suffered from 

depression, he did not substantiate his testimony with any medical records or 

testimony from his treating professionals. 

{¶ 12} On remand, the panel appointed to receive and consider evidence 

regarding respondent’s health conditions conducted a hearing, at which it heard 

respondent’s testimony regarding his traumatic brain injury and PTSD, but neither 

party introduced any medical evidence regarding those conditions. Consequently, 

the board ordered respondent to submit to an independent psychiatric examination 

to determine if he suffered from mental illness. 

{¶ 13} Citing the report of the independent psychiatric evaluator, Douglas 

Beech, M.D., the panel reluctantly found that respondent’s diagnosed mental-
January Term, 2011 

5

health condition qualified as a mitigating factor pursuant to BCGD Proc.Reg. 

10(B)(2)(g), observing that “his attitude seemed to be ‘to deny all wrongdoing, 

but if you don’t believe me, then I suffer from a mental disability that accounts for 

my actions.’ ” While the board again recommended a two-year suspension from 

the practice of law, it concluded that 18 months of that suspension (rather than the 

12 months it had previously recommended) be stayed on conditions. 

{¶ 14} Respondent objects to the board’s report and, citing Dr. Beech’s 

conclusion that he did not timely defend himself due to his mental-health 

conditions, seeks an opportunity to address the merits of the underlying grievance. 

Specifically, respondent argues that his client’s case was reinstated by the trial 

court based upon certain falsehoods committed by the defendant to the action and 

that his client later obtained a default judgment in her favor. 

{¶ 15} We have stated that we grant remands to supplement the record 

“only under the most exceptional circumstances.” See Dayton Bar Assn. v. 

Stephan, 108 Ohio St.3d 327, 2006-Ohio-1063, 843 N.E.2d 771, ¶ 5. We have 

already remanded this matter once to permit respondent to submit mitigating 

evidence of his mental disability. As a result of that remand, the record now 

contains evidence that his mental-health conditions played a significant role in his 

failure to timely respond to relator’s complaint. The alleged misdeeds of the 

defendant in the underlying civil case cannot excuse respondent’s deceit, failure 

to keep his client informed about the status of her case, failure to respond to her 

reasonable requests for information, and failure to timely seek relief from the 

judgment dismissing her case, all of which have been proven by clear and 

convincing evidence. Nor can they excuse his admitted failure to inform the 

client that he did not carry malpractice insurance. Because respondent has not 

demonstrated any exceptional circumstances warranting a second remand, we 

overrule this objection and adopt the board’s findings of fact and misconduct. 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO

6 

{¶ 16} In the alternative, respondent seeks a fully stayed suspension based 

upon the successful and ongoing treatment of his PTSD, depression, and 

traumatic brain injury, combined with the measures he has taken to safeguard his 

practice and the appointment of a practice monitor. 

{¶ 17} After reading the record in this case, reviewing respondent’s 

medical records, and interviewing and examining respondent, Dr. Beech 

submitted a report to the panel. In that report, he found: 

{¶ 18} “[Respondent] began receiving treatment in 2002 following an 

incident of trauma while working overseas in the Navy reserves. The helicopter 

he was a passenger in made a crash landing on a naval vessel and he suffered a 

head injury and loss of consciousness as a result. Preceding the crash was a 

period of intense anxiety as a realistic threat of death existed as a result of the 

tenuous circumstances. He subsequently experienced a depressive episode and 

substantial anxiety. Over ensuing months he developed classic symptoms of post 

traumatic stress disorder (PTSD) (traumatic re-experiencing [‘flashbacks’], 

phobic avoidance, night terrors, insomnia, and generalized anxiety). He was 

initially prescribed the antidepressant Celexa which was helpful for depressive 

symptoms and anxiety. He subsequently underwent individual psychotherapy for 

PTSD symptoms which was very helpful to him as well. Though the symptoms 

of depression and PTSD have fluctuated and still persist, his symptoms have been 

generally well-managed, exacerbated in times of increased external stress. His 

depression has been moderately worse in the past year, as the recent revelations 

about additional injuries and impairments have led him to feel more depressed. 

{¶ 19} “Additionally [respondent] was evaluated last year at the [Veterans 

Health Administration] medical center and diagnosed as having residual cognitive 

deficits attributable to a traumatic brain injury. He has been engaged in treatment 

and rehabilitation there to better define his cognitive deficits and maximize his 

strengths.” 
January Term, 2011 

7

{¶ 20} Dr. Beech found that respondent’s PTSD and depression played a 

significant role in his failure to timely respond to relator’s complaint and, to a 

lesser extent, contributed to his underlying misconduct. He concluded that by 

combining outpatient treatment and pharmacological management with a reduced 

caseload and the appointment of a practice monitor, respondent could continue to 

practice law in a safe and responsible manner. 

{¶ 21} We are ever mindful that the primary purpose of the disciplinary 

process is not to punish the offender but to protect the public from lawyers who 

are unworthy of the trust and confidence essential to the attorney-client 

relationship. Disciplinary Counsel v. Agopian, 112 Ohio St.3d 103, 2006-Ohio6510, 858 N.E.2d 368. 

{¶ 22} Since respondent was first diagnosed with depression, PTSD, and 

traumatic brain injury, he has received substantial treatment. He has taken a 

prescribed antidepressant, participated in individual psychotherapy, and 

participated in various forms of rehabilitation, including speech therapy and 

mental exercises to improve his memory. Recognizing the seriousness of his 

conditions, respondent has also taken significant measures to ensure that his 

cognitive deficits will not have any negative effect on his clients. He has reduced 

the number of clients that he represents, uses a recorder, takes notes, and 

communicates with his clients by e-mail as much as possible. He has also limited 

the scope of his practice to domestic relations, general litigation, and labor law. 

{¶ 23} This is the first disciplinary action that respondent has faced in his 

more than 30 years of practice, and it involves respondent’s conduct with respect 

to a single client matter. See BCGD Proc.Reg. 10(B)(2)(a) (providing that 

absence of a prior disciplinary record is a factor that may be considered in favor 

of a lesser sanction). And having observed respondent’s reasoned and articulate 

presentation at oral argument, we find his expressions of remorse and contrition to 

be genuine. 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO

8 

{¶ 24} Taking into account respondent’s diagnoses, his treatment, and his 

remedial actions, we do not believe that an actual suspension is necessary to 

protect the public from future harm. Moreover, at oral argument, both of the 

parties agreed that a two-year suspension, all stayed on conditions, would 

adequately protect the public. 

{¶ 25} In Toledo Bar Assn. v. Lowden, 105 Ohio St.3d 377, 2005-Ohio2162, 826 N.E.2d 836, ¶ 4, 7, we disciplined an attorney who had neglected two 

separate client matters, failed to carry out his contract of professional employment 

in those matters, and failed to cooperate in the resulting disciplinary 

investigations. He had also falsely signed a client’s name on four support 

schedules, notarized them as genuine, and filed them with the domestic relations 

court. Id. at ¶ 2. Although we recognized that a violation of DR 1-102(A)(4) 

generally requires an actual suspension from the practice of law for the public’s 

protection, we observed that “BCGD Proc.Reg. 10(B)(2)(g) permits us to temper 

the sanction we impose for a lawyer’s dishonesty to a client and court upon proof 

that mental disability caused the misconduct, under some circumstances.” Id. at ¶ 

19. Citing as a mitigating factor the attorney’s documented bipolar disorder and 

his willingness to commit to treatment, we imposed a two-year, fully stayed 

suspension on the condition that he continue his mental-health treatment and 

provide quarterly reports to relator during the stay. Id. at ¶ 20-21. 

{¶ 26} Unlike Lowden, which involved two separate client matters, this is 

a case of a respondent’s first disciplinary action in an otherwise unblemished 30-

year legal career, and involves a single client matter. Moreover, as noted 

previously, respondent’s conduct was born of his extensive mental-health 

problems, and his reasoned and articulate presentation at oral argument persuaded 

this court that his expressions of remorse and contrition are genuine. 

{¶ 27} Accordingly, we adopt the board’s findings of fact and misconduct 

but suspend respondent from the practice of law in Ohio for one year, with the 
January Term, 2011 

9

entire suspension stayed on the conditions that he (1) serve one year of probation 

to be supervised by a monitor appointed by relator in accordance with Gov.Bar R. 

V(9), (2) limit his practice to domestic relations, general litigation, and labor law 

(a condition imposed at his own request), (3) continue to follow the 

recommendations of his treating professionals, including ongoing 

pharmacological management by his treating physician, and (4) commit no further 

misconduct. If respondent fails to comply with these conditions, the stay will be 

lifted, and respondent will serve the entire one-year suspension. Costs are taxed 

to respondent. 

Judgment accordingly. 

 PFEIFER, O’DONNELL, and MCGEE BROWN, JJ., concur. 

 LUNDBERG STRATTON, J., concurs separately. 

 O’CONNOR, C.J., and LANZINGER and CUPP, JJ., would order a two-year 

suspension from the practice of law, all stayed on conditions. 

__________________ 

LUNDBERG STRATTON, J., concurring. 

{¶ 28} While I concur in the sanction in this matter, I write separately to 

highlight the failure on remand of the examining psychiatrist to adequately 

address the effects of respondent’s traumatic brain injury (“TBI”) and 

posttraumatic-stress disorder (“PTSD”) on his fitness to practice law. This case is 

symbolic of the problem many veterans face as they return from war with 

TBI/PTSD. Too often, the medical community fails to recognize how TBI differs 

from PTSD, to distinguish between the physical and psychological symptoms of 

TBI, and to appreciate that although TBI has psychological symptoms, it is a 

medical condition with real consequences. 

{¶ 29} American service members have sacrificed greatly, most recently 

in the battles in Afghanistan and Iraq. More than 1.6 million American service 

members have deployed to Iraq and Afghanistan in Operation Iraqi Freedom and 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO

10 

Operation Enduring Freedom, and over 565,000 have deployed more than once. 

National Council on Disability, Invisible Wounds: Serving Service Members and 

Veterans with PTSD and TBI (Mar. 4, 2009) 1, 8, available at 

http://www.ncd.gov/newsroom/ publications/2009. 

{¶ 30} Many of our veterans who have returned are still fighting the 

psychological effects of war. Id. An estimated 25 to 40 percent of returning 

veterans have psychological and neurological injuries associated with PTSD or 

TBI, which have been called the “signature injuries” of the Iraq war. Christopher 

Munsey, A Long Road Back (June 2007), 38 Monitor on Psychology 34. 

{¶ 31} “It is common to make a distinction between visible injuries such 

as orthopedic injuries, burns, and shrapnel wounds and less visible injuries such 

as PTSD. The distinction often is characterized as ‘physical’ versus ‘mental’ 

injuries. These terms imply that PTSD somehow is not physical. However, this 

is an artificial distinction. PTSD and other ‘mental illnesses’ are characterized by 

measurable changes in the brain and in the hormonal and immune systems.” 

Invisible Wounds at 8. 

Definition of PTSD/TBI 

Posttraumatic-Stress Disorder

{¶ 32} The Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (4th 

Ed.2000), the publication that defines the criteria used in diagnosing mental 

disorders, classifies PTSD as an anxiety disorder that arises from “exposure to an 

extreme traumatic stressor involving direct personal experience of an event that 

involves actual or threatened death or serious injury, or other threat to one’s 

physical integrity; or witnessing an event that involves death, injury, or a threat to 

the physical integrity of another person.” Id., 463, Section 309.81. According to 

current estimates, between 10 and 30 percent of service members will develop 

PTSD within a year of leaving combat. When depression, generalized anxiety 
January Term, 2011 

11

disorder, and substance abuse are considered, the number increases to between 16 

and 49 percent. Invisible Wounds at 2. 

Traumatic Brain Injury

{¶ 33} TBI, which is a medical diagnosis rather than a psychological 

diagnosis, is a “traumatically-induced structural injury and/or physiological 

disruption of brain function as a result of an external force that is indicated by 

new onset or worsening of at least one of the following clinical signs, 

immediately following the event: (1) Any period of loss, or a decreased level, of 

consciousness. (2) Any loss of memory for events immediately before or after the 

injury. (3) Any alteration in mental state at the time of the injury (confusion, 

disorientation, slowed thinking, etc.). (4) Neurological deficits (weakness, loss of 

balance, change in vision, praxis, paresis/plegia, sensory loss, aphasia, etc.) that 

may or may not be transient. (5) Intracranial lesion.” Office of the Surgeon 

General, Proponency Office for Rehabilitation and Reintegration, “Army TBI 

Program, Department of Defense Definition for TBI” (Feb. 2009), Slide 12. 

{¶ 34} In veterans of recent wars, TBI is commonly caused by improvised 

explosive devices, or IEDs, the makeshift bombs insurgents frequently use to 

attack United States forces. A Long Road Back, 38 Monitor on Psychology 34. 

However, in respondent’s case, the injuries were caused when the helicopter he 

was in crashed into a naval vessel while attempting to land on the vessel in the 

Indian Ocean. 

{¶ 35} “Some surveys indicate that between 10 and 20 percent of soldiers 

returning from deployments might have suffered a mild TBI.” Id.. The military 

estimates that one-fifth of the troops with these mild injuries will have 

prolonged—even lifelong—symptoms requiring continuing care. They may have 

cognitive issues such as difficulty in thinking, memory problems, attention deficit, 

mood swings, frustrations, headaches, fatigue, or many other symptoms. Invisible 

Wounds at 20. 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO

12 

{¶ 36} “Patients with a moderate to severe TBI might need physical 

therapy to learn such basic skills as how to get up in the morning and put their 

clothes on or how to walk smoothly again. * * * Motivation can also be a 

challenge, especially as patients become more aware of their impaired cognitive 

functioning. * * * [A]nger and depression can set in, as patients start to 

understand the scope of the challenge they face. * * * Dealing with a patient who 

already has a decreased ability to cope and concentrate because of PTSD—

combined with the cognitive difficulties of a TBI—isn’t something psychologists 

often encounter in the civilian world * * *.” A Long Road Back, 38 Monitor on 

Psychology 34. 

{¶ 37} In addition to medical symptoms like altered consciousness, 

seizures, infections, nerve damage, and sensory problems, persons with TBI also 

experience cognitive, communication, behavioral, emotional, and sensory 

problems. www.mayoclinic.com/health/traumatic-brain-injury/DS00552/ 

DSECTION=complications. Cognitive problems can include difficulties with 

memory, learning, reasoning, problem-solving, speed of mental processing, 

judgment, attention or concentration, multitasking, organization, decision-making, 

and beginning and/or completing tasks. Id. 

{¶ 38} Language and communication problems are common following 

TBI and may include difficulty understanding or producing spoken and written 

language (aphasia), difficulty deciphering nonverbal signals, inability to organize 

thoughts and ideas, inability to use the muscles needed to form words (dysarthria), 

problems with changes in tone, pitch, or emphasis to express emotions, attitudes 

or subtle differences in meaning, trouble starting or stopping conversations, 

trouble with turn-taking or topic selection, trouble reading cues from listeners, 

and trouble following conversations. Id. 

{¶ 39} Behavioral changes may include difficulty with self-control, lack 

of awareness of abilities, risky behavior, inaccurate self-image, difficulty in social 
January Term, 2011 

13

situations, and verbal or physical outbursts. Id. Emotional changes may include 

depression, anxiety, mood swings, irritability, lack of empathy for others, and lack 

of motivation. Id. Most people who have had significant brain injury will require 

rehabilitation. They may need to relearn basic skills, such as walking or talking. 

Id. 

Respondent’s PTSD/TBI 

{¶ 40} Respondent began receiving treatment in 2002, following an 

incident of trauma while working overseas in the Navy Reserves. Respondent 

described the trauma in this way in his response to our January 2010 show-cause 

order: 

{¶ 41} “In early February 2002 I transited from USS Bainbridge to USS 

Peterson in the Indian Ocean off Somalia at maximum range with no reciprocal 

fuel supply. The seas and winds were very bad and the Captain at first would not 

allow us to try to land. We circled the ship for over an hour to exhaust our fuel to 

minimize the possibility of fire. I was terrified by the prospect of crashing into the 

sea if we could not land on the ship. 

{¶ 42} “When we finally tried to land the wind caused us to come out of 

line and the ship came up and hit the helicopter. It was at a minimum a very 

rough landing in which I struck my head, losing consciousness. Afterward I fell 

down in my quarters and vomited. Once we got to the Seychelles I got a hotel 

room so I could recover. * * * 

{¶ 43} “I have been troubled by night terrors from the middle of February 

2002 until the present, although they are less frequent. Whenever I was home 

from overseas assignment my family noticed serious problems I was having 

sleeping, working and adjusting in general. I finally sought psychological 

counseling * * * [and was diagnosed with] Post Traumatic Stress disorder 

following a depression diagnosis by my primary care physician. 

{¶ 44} “ * * * 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO

14 

{¶ 45} “Since discovering these conditions I have altered my practice by 

hiring my daughter as a paralegal to aid me in staying organized and managing 

my time. I also underwent speech therapy. The VA doctor also identified nerve 

damage to the left side of my body and face, caused by the helicopter accident. 

Further, I am currently in the eighth week of a twelve-week cognitive therapy 

regimen at the PTSD clinic in Ft. Thomas, Kentucky. * * * 

{¶ 46} “All of these recent revelations have been very depressing. I know 

I should have been engaged in addressing the issues before the Grievance 

Commission, but I felt overwhelmed and was unable to deal with it. The PTSD 

therapy is helping me to cope with these personal matters. I am truly sorry that I 

did not do all that I should have done in responding to the committee. If given the 

chance I will cooperate fully and submit to any physical or psychological testing 

requested of me. I will provide whatever medical records not [sic] already 

provided. 

{¶ 47} “I apologize to both the Commissioners and this Court for my 

condition leading to my recent lack of responsiveness.” 

{¶ 48} In addition to respondent’s description, according to a casemanagement and biopsychosocial assessment, after respondent’s accident, he 

reported that he had lost consciousness for a few minutes and was dazed, 

confused, and disoriented after he regained consciousness. Further, respondent 

reportedly experienced the onset of headaches after he resumed consciousness, 

and he noticed a knot of tissue at the right rear side of his scalp. Respondent was 

evacuated from the helicopter, briefly evaluated, and given some Tylenol. He 

experienced ringing in his ears after the impact and later experienced difficulty 

reading and using computers. 

{¶ 49} Respondent’s medical records indicate that he had recently 

screened positive for postconcussion syndrome due to TBI, secondary to an 

incident involving a helicopter and a ship at sea to which he had been deployed to 
January Term, 2011 

15

conduct a Navy investigation. Respondent also had reported that he had noticed 

difficulty reading and difficulty using computers after he sustained the 

concussion. In addition, respondent reported that he noticed new-onset difficulty 

remembering written testimony during that investigation at sea. He further 

reported problems in remembering appointments, performing “to-do” items, 

remembering people he speaks with, and remembering the content of his reading. 

He also reported headaches, including symptoms entirely new after the helicopter 

incident at sea. 

{¶ 50} In October 2009, respondent reported that in the preceding month, 

he had experienced disturbing memories, thoughts, or images of his stressful 

experience, disturbing dreams of the stressful experience, feeling upset when 

something reminded him of the stressful experience, having physical reactions 

when something reminded him of the stressful experience, avoiding thinking 

about or talking about the stressful experience, avoiding activities or situations 

that reminded him of the stressful experience, loss of interest in activities he used 

to enjoy, feeling distant or cut off from other people, trouble falling or staying 

asleep, difficulty concentrating, feeling jumpy or easily startled, and being 

“superalert” or watchful or on guard. 

Remand for Consideration of Evidence Regarding 

Respondent’s Health Conditions 

{¶ 51} As noted by the majority opinion, in March 2010, this court 

ordered that this matter be remanded to the Board of Commissioners on 

Grievances and Discipline for consideration of evidence to be submitted by the 

parties regarding respondent’s health conditions. On remand, the examining 

psychiatrist, Douglas Beech, M.D., issued a four-and-a-half-page report based on 

his one-hour-and-forty-five-minute interview with and examination of respondent. 

Based on available data and on a current psychiatric evaluation, as stated in his 

November 8, 2010 report, Dr. Beech diagnosed respondent with major depressive 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO

16 

disorder, recurrent, in remission, and PTSD, chronic, in partial remission. In 

addition, Dr. Beech diagnosed TBI and trauma-related neuropathy. 

{¶ 52} Although Dr. Beech noted in his report that he had been retained to 

evaluate respondent’s mental health, he devoted very little of his report to 

addressing respondent’s TBI. In fact, in the four-and-a-half-page report, he 

acknowledged TBI in only three sentences, including the following: 

“Additionally, Mr. Minamyer was evaluated last year at the VA medical center 

and diagnosed as having some residual cognitive deficits attributable to a 

traumatic brain injury. He has been engaged in treatment and rehabilitation there 

to better define his cognitive deficits and maximize his strengths.” Dr. Beech 

performed no meaningful analysis of the effects of TBI on respondent’s practice. 

{¶ 53} In fact, Dr. Beech concluded: “[A]lthough Mr. Minamyer does 

have two significant mental disorders, his mental health difficulties likely played 

only a modest role in the alleged misconduct in his handling of the [client] matter. 

To whatever degree he was neglectful of his duties in the case, his conditions 

likely played a contributory, but not a primary role. The most significant role 

played by his conditions was his avoidance of responding to the complaint in a 

timely manner.” 

{¶ 54} Correspondingly, it appears that respondent’s lack of response to 

the complaint in a timely manner was much of the focus of the June 28, 2010 

hearing before the Board of Commissioners on Grievances and Discipline. Rather 

than addressing how respondent’s health and mental-health diagnoses affected his 

practice of law, the hearing seemed to focus more on the consternation of the 

panel and the relator regarding respondent’s initial lack of participation in the 

disciplinary process. 

{¶ 55} Relator’s counsel asked, “Isn’t it fair to say also that you, through 

your behavior, have obstructed our Bar Association from investigating these very 

facts by failing to cooperate in the initial litigation and in the litigation after the 
January Term, 2011 

17

remand?” When respondent noted that he was not trying to hide that he had 

engaged in irresponsible behavior, but that the reason for that behavior was the 

TBI and the PTSD, relator’s counsel asked: “And would you agree that the 

consequences of that behavior was our inability to investigate the very things that 

you’re talking about here today?” Respondent answered, “Well, that’s true, but 

that’s kind of circular. Because the mental condition, itself, is the cause of the 

problem being able to investigate the mental condition.” 

{¶ 56} The transcript records the ensuing exchange: 

{¶ 57} “Q [relator’s counsel]. * * * Would you agree with me that your 

failure to participate in the initial litigation in the Supreme Court prevented us 

from investigating the very things that you’re talking about here today? 

{¶ 58} “A [respondent]. No, because I offered to give you a release at our 

last meeting, and you never asked for it. 

{¶ 59} “Q. Okay. 

{¶ 60} “A. And I gave you all the medical records that I had up till that 

point. So even if, you know, you had everything that was available at the time, 

and I had offered to give you access to everything I’ve—every medical record 

I’ve ever had. 

{¶ 61} “Q. So says you. But, again, you’re a lawyer, so you know we 

have an adversarial system, right? 

{¶ 62} “A. Are you denying it, that I said that to you in the Supreme 

Court room? 

{¶ 63} “Q. I’m asking questions, and I’m asking for your answers. 

{¶ 64} “A. Well, but you’re asking a question that assumes something 

that’s not really true, and you know it. 

{¶ 65} “Q. You provided us stuff, but have we been able to dig in and do 

our own investigation? Have we been able to do that? 

{¶ 66} “A. You could have. 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO

18 

{¶ 67} “Q. Okay.” 

{¶ 68} The panel’s and board’s further irritation with respondent’s lack of 

involvement with the disciplinary process is indicated by relator’s response to 

respondent’s response to the show-cause order: “He minimizes his conduct and 

refuses to take responsibility for his actions. The language in the December 18, 

2009 Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law and Recommendation by the hearing 

panel is on target: ‘The panel found Respondent unwilling to take responsibility 

for his conduct. Respondent had an excuse for everything, and his attitude seemed 

to be “to deny all wrongdoing, but if you don't believe me, then I suffer from a 

mental disability that accounts for my actions.”‘ ” 

{¶ 69} In my view, respondent’s mental-health issues were not fully and 

thoroughly considered initially or on remand. 

Conclusion 

{¶ 70} In the words of an injured veteran, “ ‘The war is done for me now. 

The days of standing in the hot desert sun, setting up ambushes on the sides of 

mountains and washing the blood from my friend’s gear are over. The battles 

with bombs, bullets, and blood are a thing of the past. I still constantly fight a 

battle that rages inside my head.’ Brian McGough, a 32-year-old Army staff 

sergeant whose convoy was attacked with IEDs in 2006. From his blog ‘Inside 

My Broken Skull.’ ” Invisible Wounds at 8. 

{¶ 71} The intent of this court in remanding this case was for 

consideration of evidence to be submitted by the parties regarding respondent’s 

health conditions. Dr. Beech’s scant treatment of the issue in his letter to the 

Board of Commissioners on Grievances and Discipline is not helpful to our 

decision-making but is illustrative of what is often the medical community’s 

inadequate treatment of these issues. The psychiatrist’s report and the findings of 

the board show a clear lack of understanding and appreciation of the effects of 

PTSD/TBI on respondent’s behavior. Indeed, his failure to deal with the charges 
January Term, 2011 

19

is interpreted as deliberate, when in fact it is one of the very symptoms of his 

injuries. I write in the hopes of bringing a greater understanding to the judicial 

system of these relatively new issues that we will continue to confront as more 

veterans return from war with these injuries. 

{¶ 72} I believe that the examining psychiatrist failed in his duty to 

adequately address the effects of respondent’s PTSD/TBI on his fitness to practice 

law and that the board failed to understand and appreciate the effects of PTSD and 

TBI on respondent’s behavior and his ability to cope. 

{¶ 73} Respondent has taken action to treat his injuries. He has been 

undergoing treatment through the Department of Veterans Affairs for his visible 

and nonvisible injuries. He has been working on his gait. He has been working 

with a speech therapist at the VA. In addition, because he had been having 

difficulty putting sentences together, he went back to school to rehabilitate his 

mental processes. In his law office, he has cut back on the time he spends at his 

practice, has not taken on new clients, and has his daughter assist him in lawoffice management. 

{¶ 74} Because the human brain is so complicated, it is extremely difficult 

to predict the long-term effects of any TBI. Most cases of mild TBI will resolve 

over time with minimal problems. In the case of more serious TBIs, a person can 

experience any number of changes over the course of months and years. 

http://www.brainline.org/content/2008/08/frequently-asked-questions.html. 

{¶ 75} “A number of factors, including Glasgow coma scale (GCS) score, 

age, pupillary response and size, hypoxia, hyperthermia, and high intracranial 

pressure, may play an important role in predicting the outcome of traumatic brain 

injury. Eight hundred forty-six cases of severe traumatic brain injury (GCS≤8) 

were analyzed retrospectively to clarify the effects of multiple factors on the 

prognosis of patients. At 1 year after injury, the outcomes in these cases were as 

follows: good recovery, 31.56%; moderate disability, 14.07%; severe disability 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO

20 

24.35%; vegetative status, 0.59%; and death, 29.43%.” Ji-Yao Jiang, Guo-Yi 

Gao, Wei-Ping Li, Ming-Kun Yu, and Cheng Zhu, Early Indicators of Prognosis 

in 846 Cases of Severe Traumatic Brain Injury (July 2002), 19 Journal of 

Neurotrauma 869, abstract available at http://www.liebertonline.com/doi 

/abs/10.1089/ 08977150260190456. 

{¶ 76} With proper treatment, such as that which respondent has been 

seeking, people with PTSD/TBI can improve the way their brain functions, and 

they can often reclaim the portions of their lives that were affected by their 

injuries. 

{¶ 77} This is respondent’s first disciplinary action in an otherwise 

unblemished 30-year legal career. Based on the facts of this case, the single 

incident of misconduct and the extensive mental-health mitigation, I concur in the 

majority’s decision to suspend respondent from the practice of law for one year 

with the entire suspension stayed on conditions. Further, because respondent has 

been actively engaged in treatment and because we can monitor his progress 

through a stayed suspension, I concur in the monitored-probation portion of the 

sanction but would hope that the monitoring of his compliance is done with a full 

appreciation and understanding of his wounds of war. 

__________________ 

Bennett A. Manning and Christopher J. Pagan, for relator. 

William Eric Minamyer, pro se. 

______________________