COLUMBUS, Ohio - Ohio disciplinary officials are pushing for an 18-month suspension from practicing law for former Struthers Municipal Judge Dominic Leone. The recommendation, filed with the Supreme Court of Ohio's Board of Professional Conduct, follows a hearing that examined Leone's actions both as a judge and an attorney.

The Disciplinary Counsel, the state office that investigates and brings charges against attorneys for misconduct, has asked the board to find that Leone broke several professional rules. They are highlighting his past behavior, including actions that led to a court-issued protection order against him, as well as his conduct during a court hearing and statements he made about a judge in official legal documents.

Court papers filed by the Disciplinary Counsel detail the alleged wrongdoing. They claim that while Leone was a sitting judge, he violated Ohio law by "menacing by stalking." This led to a court ordering a protection order against him, a decision he later appealed and lost. The Disciplinary Counsel emphasized that judges are required to follow the law, and this final ruling shows he failed to do so.

Leone is also accused of actions that hurt the public's confidence in the court system, including an incident where he allegedly shouted offensive language about Mayor Catherine Miller in a public building, so loudly that others in public areas could hear him. The protection order, which limited his access to certain parts of City Hall, is also cited as damaging to public trust in the judiciary.

The Disciplinary Counsel states that Leone behaved in a disrespectful and undignified way during a court hearing on May 21, 2024. Judge Joseph Giulitto, who was overseeing that hearing, testified that Leone was "angry," "disrespectful," and constantly interrupted the proceedings. A witness called by Leone described his behavior as "not within our canon of ethics" and simply "not appropriate." The Court of Appeals later agreed that Leone showed a "lack of respect" and "self-control."

Leone is also accused of making false statements about Judge Paula Giulitto. In a legal document submitted to an appeals court, Leone repeatedly referred to Judge Giulitto as a "Catholic judge" and wrongly claimed he was forced to agree to a protection order after supposedly being harassed about his religious beliefs. The Disciplinary Counsel argues that Leone either knew these statements were false or acted carelessly without checking if they were true.

In his own post-hearing brief, Leone argued that the Disciplinary Counsel had not met the high legal standard of "clear and convincing evidence" needed to prove he willfully broke the rules.

Regarding the "menacing by stalking" claim, Leone stated he was not arrested, charged, or convicted of any crime, and no police reports were filed. He also suggested that Mayor Miller, as an elected official, should expect a higher level of "verbal disparagement." He further questioned whether the reported "harm" to the mayor could instead be side effects of a weight-loss drug.

Leone denied that his conduct impacted the independence, integrity, or impartiality of the judiciary or showed impropriety. He characterized the incident with Mayor Miller as a disagreement stemming from an accounting issue, where a judicial candidate upset an elected official at a polling place and later yelled in his private office. He also pointed out that the mayor continued to campaign fully.

Concerning his behavior during the May 21, 2024, hearing, Leone argued that arguing with your lawyer in court is not disrespectful to the court itself, and that it should be up to the presiding judge to regulate such matters or refer the conduct for review. He noted he requested a recess multiple times and disagreed with the court's suggestions at times.

As for the false statements about Judge Giulitto, Leone claimed that because a "Catholic baptism" was the main reason for the protection order filing, he suspected religious bias given what he viewed as the judge's "haphazard decisions." He maintained that his statements in the appeal brief about the judge being Catholic were made with this suspicion in mind.

In their recommendation, the Disciplinary Counsel outlined factors that should shape the board's decision on how to punish Leone.

They pointed to several aggravating factors, which are circumstances that make the misconduct seem more serious: a pattern of bad behavior over two and a half years, involving both his time as a judge and as a lawyer, marked by "offensive and inflammatory attacks" against people who disagreed with him; multiple violations across different situations; a lack of cooperation during the investigation into his conduct, including attempts to block a deposition and making accusations against the Disciplinary Counsel; and a refusal to admit his actions were wrong, as he seemed to focus more on his losses rather than showing regret for any harm he caused to others, despite apologizing to some individuals not involved in the charges.

However, Leone argued there was no "pattern of misconduct" because the details of each incident were different. He also contested the claim of "lack of cooperation," stating he had shown "exceptional cooperation at the hearing." He also suggested there was "no documented harm," pointing to the lack of a police report from the alleged victim and her inviting the media to the hearing.

The Disciplinary Counsel also presented mitigating factors, which are circumstances that might make the punishment less severe: Leone has no prior record of professional discipline; he fully and openly shared information with the board during the hearing, even though his cooperation in earlier stages was limited; and he had a respected reputation and character as both an attorney and a judge before December 2022.

Leone believes he has an "overwhelming amount of mitigating factors in his favor," emphasizing his cooperation and lack of prior discipline. He also argued that losing his job and career should count as an "imposition of other penalties or sanctions."

The Disciplinary Counsel disagreed with counting Leone's resignation from his judicial position as a factor that lessens his guilt, stating that the exact reason for his resignation was unclear.

The Disciplinary Counsel has recommended that Leone be suspended from practicing law for 18 months, with 12 months of that suspension put on hold if he meets certain conditions.

For Leone to return to practicing law, the Disciplinary Counsel proposes that he undergo an evaluation by the Ohio Lawyers Assistance Program (OLAP). This program helps legal professionals with personal issues, including mental health. If OLAP recommends it, Leone would then need to agree to a plan with the program. The remaining part of his suspension would stay on hold only if he follows this OLAP plan and avoids any further misconduct.

The Disciplinary Counsel stressed that making baseless attacks against the honesty of judges typically leads to an actual suspension from practicing law. They also highlighted Leone's mental health as a significant concern, suggesting that the proposed punishment aims to ensure he gets the necessary treatment before he might return to the legal profession.

Leone, however, has asked the panel to dismiss the case entirely. Alternatively, if any allegations are proven, he requests a sanction that is "in line with other cases, if any sanction is necessary," suggesting a public reprimand as a possibility based on his review of similar cases.