The Supreme Court of Ohio today suspended a Cleveland attorney for one year, with six months stayed, based on actions while representing parents in child-neglect cases.

In a per curiam opinion, the Supreme Court found that Tyresha Brown-O’Neal violated ethics rules by filing falsely notarized affidavits in the juvenile court cases, making false statements to the court, failing to appear at hearings, inducing another attorney to violate professional conduct rules, and other misconduct.

Brown-O’Neal’s misconduct occurred during representation that began in 2021 in cases involving the alleged neglect of two minors. She was hired to represent the children’s mother and the father of one child. A court had ordered that the children be placed in the custody of others besides Brown-O’Neal’s clients.

As the cases progressed, Brown-O’Neal, who is also a part-time magistrate, did not appear at several court hearings on the matters. When filing a motion, Brown-O’Neal claimed to have notarized affidavits, even though she was not commissioned as a notary public.

She persuaded one child’s father, who had been given custody and had an attorney, to sign an affidavit stating that he made up allegations against her clients. She also failed to share the document with his attorney before the father signed it. She then convinced a colleague to notarize the affidavit, falsely saying that she had witnessed the man’s signature, which she had not.

Justices R. Patrick DeWine, Michael P. Donnelly, Melody Stewart, and Joseph T. Deters joined the opinion. Chief Justice Sharon L. Kennedy and Justice Patrick F. Fischer would have declined to stay part of the suspension. Justice Jennifer Brunner did not participate in the case.

Disciplinary Charges Filed, Parties Agree to Facts and Misconduct
The Office of Disciplinary Counsel filed a complaint against Brown-O’Neal in January 2024. The professional misconduct charges also included communicating directly with someone she knew had legal representation and failing to serve counsel with written motions.

The disciplinary counsel and Brown-O’Neal agreed to certain facts, misconduct, and mitigating and aggravating factors. After holding a hearing, the Board of Professional Conduct found Brown-O’Neal’s pattern of misconduct, multiple offenses, and harm to vulnerable people were aggravating circumstances, which could increase her sanction. Mitigating factors, which could lessen the sanction, were that she had no prior discipline, cooperated in the disciplinary proceedings, and submitted evidence of good character.

The board recommended to the Supreme Court that Brown-O’Neal be suspended for one year with six-months stayed with the condition that she commit no further misconduct. Neither party filed objections to the board report.

Supreme Court Highlights Inducing Colleague’s Misconduct and Magistrate Role
The Supreme Court opinion today noted that Brown-O’Neal made misrepresentations to the juvenile court and repeated them over time. She also involved her colleague – an attorney who worked for her – in her misconduct, and she falsely notarized documents.

The Court noted that an actual suspension is appropriate when an attorney causes another to violate ethics rules. In addition, a more serious sanction is justified when an attorney commits professional misconduct while holding a position of trust, as Brown-O’Neal does as a part-time magistrate.

“[W]e conclude that an actual suspension protects the public and demonstrates that this type of behavior, especially from those in a position of trust, is not acceptable,” the opinion stated.

2024-1109. Disciplinary Counsel v. Brown-O’Neal, Slip Opinion No. 2024-Ohio-5571.

Please note: Opinion summaries are prepared by the Office of Public Information for the general public and news media. Opinion summaries are not prepared for every opinion, but only for noteworthy cases. Opinion summaries are not to be considered as official headnotes or syllabi of court opinions. The full text of this and other court opinions are available online.

PDF files may be viewed, printed, and searched using the free Acrobat^® Reader
Acrobat Reader is a trademark of Adobe Systems Incorporated.