Only the Office of Disciplinary Counsel May Invoke Reciprocal Discipline in Ohio; Court Flags Risks of Mandatory Reciprocity During Pending Ohio Appeals

Only the Office of Disciplinary Counsel May Invoke Reciprocal Discipline in Ohio; Court Flags Risks of Mandatory Reciprocity During Pending Ohio Appeals

Introduction

In 10/22/2025 Case Announcements #3, 2025-Ohio-4813, the Supreme Court of Ohio summarily dismissed a reciprocal-discipline matter arising from felony voting convictions of Ohio attorney James Dalton Saunders. The Cleveland Metropolitan Bar Association (CMBA) filed certified disciplinary orders from New York and Florida, seeking to trigger reciprocal discipline in Ohio based on those out-of-state outcomes. The Court dismissed the cause sua sponte because the filing did not comply with the gatekeeping mechanism in Gov.Bar R. V(20)(A), which assigns initiation of reciprocal discipline exclusively to the Office of Disciplinary Counsel (ODC).

Justice Fischer concurred, agreeing with dismissal but writing separately to spotlight a structural problem in Ohio’s disciplinary framework: the tension between Gov.Bar R. V(18), which stays formal disciplinary proceedings on Ohio felony convictions until all direct appeals conclude, and Gov.Bar R. V(20), which mandates (“shall”) the imposition of identical or comparable discipline when a certified order from another jurisdiction is properly filed. According to the concurrence, this design risks allowing other jurisdictions—acting on Ohio conduct—to effectively set the ultimate sanction for Ohio lawyers before Ohio’s own merits proceedings can be held, raising concerns about Ohio’s constitutional authority over the bar and potential due process issues.

Summary of the Opinion

The Court announced a merit decision without an opinion, dismissing the CMBA’s filing sua sponte. Five justices concurred; Justice Fischer concurred separately; Justice Brunner did not participate. The dispositive procedural point is straightforward: reciprocal discipline under Gov.Bar R. V(20) is initiated by ODC, not by a local bar association. Because CMBA, rather than ODC, submitted the certified New York and Florida orders, “we cannot consider reciprocal discipline under Gov.Bar R. V(20), and the cause must be dismissed” (Fischer, J., concurring, ¶ 8).

Justice Fischer’s concurrence recounts the underlying chronology:

  • August 2023: Saunders is convicted in Cuyahoga County of two felony counts of illegal voting (R.C. 3599.12(A)(2)) while licensed in Ohio, New York, and Florida (¶ 2).
  • November 21, 2023: Ohio Supreme Court imposes an interim suspension under Gov.Bar R. V(18)(A)(4) following notification of the felony convictions (¶ 2; In re Saunders, 2023-Ohio-4187).
  • July 11, 2024: New York disbars Saunders based on substantially similar offenses under its law (N.Y. Jud. Law 90(4); Matter of Saunders, 229 A.D.3d 939, 940 (2024)) (¶ 3).
  • July 25, 2024: Florida disbars Saunders after a referee’s recommendation under its sanctioning standards (Florida Bar v. Saunders, 2024 WL 3532449) (¶ 4).
  • Ohio criminal appeals remain pending; the Eighth District remanded for resentencing and a subsequent appeal is pending (State v. Saunders, 2024-Ohio-4580, ¶ 102; 2025-Ohio-231 declining jurisdiction; resentenced Mar. 4, 2025) (¶ 6).

Because Gov.Bar R. V(18)(C) forbids bringing an Ohio disciplinary matter to hearing on an Ohio felony conviction until all direct appeals conclude, Ohio’s own merits discipline remains on hold—even though New York and Florida have already disbarred Saunders. Justice Fischer highlights that, had ODC properly filed the out-of-state orders, Gov.Bar R. V(20) would have compelled the Court to impose identical or comparable discipline (i.e., disbarment), absent limited exceptions that appear inapplicable (¶¶ 9–10).

Analysis

Procedural Posture and the Court’s Gatekeeping Ruling

The dispositive holding is procedural: reciprocal discipline in Ohio is not self-executing and is not triggered by filings from relator bar associations. Gov.Bar R. V(20)(A) places initiation of reciprocal discipline with ODC; upon notice of an out-of-state disciplinary order, ODC must obtain a certified copy and file it with the Supreme Court of Ohio. Here, CMBA—not ODC—filed the orders, so the Court dismissed. This serves as a clear, formal reminder of who may invoke Ohio’s reciprocal discipline mechanism and how.

Precedents and Authorities Cited

  • Gov.Bar R. V(18): Felony Convictions
    • V(18)(A)(1)(a): An attorney convicted of a felony in Ohio is subject to interim suspension (¶ 5).
    • V(18)(C): No disciplinary proceeding “shall” be brought to hearing based on the conviction until all direct criminal appeals are concluded (¶ 5).
  • Gov.Bar R. V(20): Reciprocal Discipline
    • V(20)(A): ODC must file the certified out-of-state order with the clerk. Filing by a bar association is insufficient (¶ 8).
    • V(20)(B)–(C): After notice and an opportunity to respond, the Court “shall impose the identical or comparable discipline,” unless the attorney proves by clear and convincing evidence a lack of jurisdiction or fraud in the foreign proceeding, or that the misconduct warrants substantially different discipline in Ohio (¶ 9).
  • Dorrian v. Scioto Conservancy Dist., 27 Ohio St.2d 102, 107 (1971): The repeated use of “shall” indicates a mandatory duty, especially when reiterated throughout a rule (¶ 10).
  • Scalia and Garner, Reading Law: The Interpretation of Legal Texts (2012), pp. 112–115: The mandatory/permissive canon reinforcing “shall” as obligation (¶ 10).
  • Ohio Const., art. IV, § 2(B)(1)(g): The Supreme Court of Ohio’s constitutional authority over admission to the bar, discipline, and all matters relating to the practice of law (¶ 12).
  • Out-of-State Dispositions
    • Matter of Saunders, 229 A.D.3d 939, 940 (N.Y. App. Div. 3d Dep’t 2024): Disbarment based on Ohio felony convictions under substantially similar New York law (¶ 3).
    • The Florida Bar v. Saunders, 2024 WL 3532449 (Fla. July 25, 2024): Disbarment per Florida’s Standards 5.1(a)(1) and 7.1 after referee proceedings (¶ 4).

Legal Reasoning

The majority’s reasoning, though succinct in the announcement, turns on a straightforward reading of Gov.Bar R. V(20)(A): because ODC did not file the certified orders, reciprocal discipline could not be considered, and dismissal was required (¶ 8).

Justice Fischer’s concurrence develops the deeper structural implications:

  • Mandatory Reciprocity: Gov.Bar R. V(20) repeatedly uses “shall”—a mandatory term. Once a proper filing is made and the show-cause process under V(20)(B) is observed, the Court must impose identical or comparable discipline unless a limited exception applies (¶¶ 9–10). The concurrence emphasizes that the exceptions (lack of jurisdiction, fraud, or a need for substantially different discipline) appear unlikely here.
  • Tension with Ohio’s Felony-Conviction Rule: Gov.Bar R. V(18)(C) prohibits bringing to hearing any Ohio disciplinary proceeding based on a felony conviction until all direct criminal appeals are over (¶ 5). Yet V(20) contains no similar waiting period and would force Ohio to impose counterpart discipline immediately upon proper filing—even when the underlying Ohio disciplinary matter cannot yet proceed to merits due to pending appeals (¶¶ 6, 9, 11).
  • Risk of Outsourcing Ohio’s Sanction: If Ohio must reciprocally disbar because another state disbarred—especially if that other state acted solely on the Ohio conviction (as in New York)—then Ohio risks letting other jurisdictions determine the sanction for Ohio-based misconduct before Ohio can adjudicate its own disciplinary case. Justice Fischer is “reticent to cede this authority,” invoking the Court’s constitutional prerogative over discipline (¶¶ 11–12).
  • The “Harshest Sanction” Trap: When different jurisdictions issue different sanctions for the same Ohio conduct, V(20)’s mandatory language offers no discretion to choose among them. The concurrence warns that Ohio would effectively have to adopt the harshest sanction imposed to satisfy the “identical or comparable” requirement, despite divergent procedures and predicates across jurisdictions (¶ 12).
  • Circular Reciprocity and Due Process: New York’s action appears to be predicated on the Ohio conviction itself, and Florida conducted its own independent proceeding. If Ohio then imposes discipline reciprocally based on those orders, it may be reciprocating another jurisdiction’s own reciprocity or derivative judgment, creating a circular loop that both undermines Ohio’s constitutional role and may raise due-process concerns (¶ 12).

Impact

The immediate effect is a reaffirmed procedural rule: reciprocal discipline in Ohio is initiated only by ODC. Filings by bar associations will be dismissed. That gatekeeping point will directly shape how reciprocal cases are processed statewide.

The broader impact lies in the concurrence’s cautionary analysis:

  • Internal Rule Tension: The interaction between V(18)(C)’s stay on Ohio felony-based disciplinary hearings and V(20)’s mandatory reciprocity creates an internal tension. Unless revised, this could permit swift reciprocal disbarments in Ohio based on out-of-state orders for Ohio conduct while Ohio’s own proceedings are frozen pending criminal appeals.
  • Constitutional Stewardship: The Court’s constitutional authority over bar discipline (Ohio Const., art. IV, § 2(B)(1)(g)) may be impaired if out-of-state determinations effectively dictate Ohio sanctions before Ohio adjudicates the merits of in-state misconduct. Justice Fischer’s concurrence invites reevaluation of the rules to prevent that outcome.
  • Multi-Jurisdictional Practice: Lawyers licensed in multiple states face asymmetric risks. States vary in process and timing; harsher or faster-moving jurisdictions can precipitate reciprocal consequences elsewhere. Ohio’s current rule text could force it to mirror those outcomes immediately upon proper filing.
  • Due Process Considerations: Reciprocal discipline that occurs before Ohio’s own merits proceeding—especially when predicated on Ohio conduct and Ohio convictions still on direct appeal—may raise fairness concerns, including the possibility of “bootstrapped” discipline without a full Ohio merits record.
  • Practical Compliance: Relators and local bar associations must coordinate with ODC. If reciprocal discipline is contemplated, it must be channeled through ODC to avoid dismissal. ODC, in turn, may need to weigh the prudential timing and exceptions in V(20)(C)(1) when parallel Ohio criminal appeals or disciplinary stays exist.

Complex Concepts Simplified

  • Interim Suspension vs. Disbarment:
    • An interim suspension is a temporary, immediate restraint on practice triggered by events like a felony conviction; it remains in place until further order.
    • Disbarment is a final sanction terminating the right to practice (subject to any future reinstatement mechanisms). Here, Ohio imposed an interim suspension; New York and Florida imposed disbarment.
  • Reciprocal Discipline:
    • When another jurisdiction disciplines a lawyer, Ohio may impose the same or comparable sanction through a streamlined process, rather than relitigating the facts.
    • In Ohio, that process begins only when ODC files a certified copy of the foreign order; after notice and opportunity to respond, the Court “shall” impose identical or comparable discipline unless narrow exceptions are proven by clear and convincing evidence.
  • “Shall” as Mandatory:
    • Under Ohio interpretive principles, repeated use of “shall” generally creates an obligation rather than discretion. That is why Gov.Bar R. V(20)’s “shall impose” language is so consequential.
  • Stay of Disciplinary Hearings Pending Appeals:
    • Ohio’s rules prohibit bringing to hearing a disciplinary case based on an Ohio felony conviction until all direct criminal appeals are concluded. This is designed to avoid inconsistent outcomes and conserve resources while criminal appeals are pending.
  • Sua Sponte Dismissal:
    • The Court dismissed the case on its own motion, without a party’s request, based on a clear procedural defect (the wrong filer under the rule).
  • Clear and Convincing Evidence:
    • A heightened burden of proof, requiring the attorney to firmly persuade the Court of specific exceptions to reciprocity—such as lack of jurisdiction or fraud in the foreign proceeding, or that Ohio would impose a substantially different sanction for the same misconduct.

Practical Guidance and Open Questions

  • Gatekeeping:
    • Only ODC may initiate reciprocal discipline under Gov.Bar R. V(20)(A). Local bar associations should transmit foreign orders to ODC rather than filing in the Supreme Court of Ohio.
  • Timing Conflicts:
    • Gov.Bar R. V(18)(C) bars bringing to hearing an Ohio felony-based disciplinary case while direct criminal appeals are pending. Gov.Bar R. V(20) contains no analogous timing limitation. The rules do not expressly address which provision controls when both are implicated by the same underlying conduct.
  • Multiple Foreign Sanctions:
    • When different states impose different sanctions for the same Ohio conduct, V(20)’s “identical or comparable” command does not say which jurisdiction’s order to mirror. The concurrence suggests Ohio could be forced to adopt the harshest to satisfy the mandate, but the rule text is silent on choice among competing foreign orders.
  • Exceptions in Practice:
    • To avoid mandatory reciprocity, the attorney must prove one of the narrow exceptions by clear and convincing evidence. How often “substantially different discipline in Ohio” will apply where the misconduct is Ohio-based remains an open, fact-intensive inquiry.
  • Structural Reform:
    • Justice Fischer signals that the ideal solution is rulemaking: adjusting Gov.Bar R. V to prevent foreign reciprocal actions from obviating Ohio’s own disciplinary process for Ohio misconduct, and to mitigate constitutional and due process risks. Potential avenues include express deferral of reciprocity where Ohio felony appeals are pending, or introducing limited discretion in V(20)(C) to harmonize divergent out-of-state sanctions.

Conclusion

The Supreme Court of Ohio’s sua sponte dismissal in Cleveland Metro. Bar Assn. v. Saunders reaffirms a clean procedural rule: only the Office of Disciplinary Counsel can initiate reciprocal discipline under Gov.Bar R. V(20); filings by bar associations will be dismissed. Justice Fischer’s concurrence, however, is the substantive fulcrum of the announcement. It exposes a significant friction point in Ohio’s disciplinary architecture: the interplay between the mandatory, fast-moving nature of reciprocal discipline and the stay that protects the integrity of Ohio felony-based disciplinary hearings during direct criminal appeals.

If unaddressed, that tension could allow out-of-state actions—sometimes based on Ohio convictions and sometimes using distinct procedures—to dictate Ohio’s ultimate sanction before Ohio can exercise its constitutional role in bar discipline. The concurrence thus invites careful reconsideration of Gov.Bar R. V to prevent circular reciprocity, the “harshest sanction” trap, and potential due process concerns. For now, the immediate practical takeaway is procedural: channel reciprocal discipline exclusively through ODC and be mindful that, once properly filed, Ohio’s rules make identical or comparable sanctions the default outcome absent a narrowly proven exception.

Case Details

Year: 2025
Court: Supreme Court of Ohio

Judge(s)

 

Comments