In Her Father’s Court

The Ohio Supreme Court has imposed a conditionally stayed suspension for misconduct in a probate matter toward a party in part in proceedings where her father was the presiding judge.

The party had questioned her father’s role in a public forum

David expressed his belief that the judge should recuse himself under those circumstances. David further stated, “Justice depends on the appearance as well as the reality of fairness in all things. Otherwise, it erodes public confidence in the legal system.” He added that “[w]hen people leave the courtroom, * * * they need to feel like they got a fair shake” and that the system “wasn’t rigged.” David spoke for approximately two and a half minutes on this issue and stated that he merely wanted to ensure that the commissioners were aware of Judge O’Diam’s practice. He did not specifically mention his personal involvement with the judge, though he stated that he was planning to file a grievance with relator.

Violations

The board found that from the time O’Diam learned of David’s comments at the county commissioners’ meeting, he became the target of her written and verbal disparagement and abuse: she informed attorneys who had represented David that she was having issues with him, that he was being uncooperative, and that he had tried to make her family look bad; in the presence of his family at the status conference, she demeaned and humiliated David and accused him of singlehandedly costing the estate substantial amounts of money; and in their correspondence with Martin and the probate court, she and her paralegal repeatedly referred to David as being “problematic” and unjustly blamed him for all the delays and increased attorney fees incurred in the administration of the estate. In addition, the board found that O’Diam had engaged in retaliatory, demeaning, and humiliating conduct in her questioning of David during the status conference.

Finding that O’Diam’s conduct had no substantial purpose other than to embarrass, harass, delay, or burden David, the board concluded that O’Diam violated Prof.Cond.R. 4.4(a). The board also found that O’Diam’s conduct in intentionally triggering a criminal investigation and other humiliating consequences for David with misleading insinuations of financial abuse and mistreatment adversely reflected on her fitness to practice law in violation of Prof.Cond.R. 8.4(h).

Sanction

Brittany Dawn O’Diam is suspended from the practice of law in Ohio for six months, with the suspension stayed in its entirety on the condition that she commit no further misconduct.

(Mike Frisch)