The Supreme Court of Ohio today permanently disbarred a Columbus attorney convicted in 2014 of rape and other sex crimes.

Javier Armengau objected to the Supreme Court’s attempt to disbar him, arguing he is innocent of the charges against him and that he is morally, ethically, and professionally capable of resuming the practice of law.

In a unanimous per curiam opinion, the Court found that despite his declaration of innocence, Armengau’s convictions have been affirmed on appeal, and those decisions “constitute conclusive evidence that Armengau committed the crimes.”

The Court imposed an interim suspension on Armengau when he was convicted of the crimes in 2014, and the suspension remained in effect during his appeals. His disciplinary proceedings were repeatedly postponed during his appeals. Armengau was initially sentenced to 13 years in prison but was released in 2023 after serving nine-and-a-half years.

Chief Justice Sharon L. Kennedy and Justices Patrick F. Fischer, R. Patrick DeWine, Joseph T. Deters, and Megan E. Shanahan joined the per curiam opinion. Justices Jennifer Brunner and Daniel R. Hawkins did not participate in the case.

Ninth District Court of Appeals Judge Betty Sutton, sitting for Justice Brunner, and Second District Court of Appeals Judge Christopher Epley, sitting for Justice Hawkins, also joined the opinion.

Crimes Committed While Practicing Law
Armengau was convicted of rape, kidnapping, two counts of gross sexual imposition, and four counts of sexual battery arising from acts committed against three women.

A woman identified in court records as “C.C.” hired Armengau to represent her son, who had been indicted for aggravated murder and other charges. C.C. testified that during an interview about her son’s case with Armengau at his Columbus office, he sat next to her to review a legal file. He placed his arm down her shirt. He then stood in front of her and unzipped his pants. She quickly left and reported the incident to the police. This led to a charge and conviction of gross sexual imposition.

A second woman hired Armengau to represent her in a criminal matter. She said during an interview in his office, Armengau began rubbing her shoulder and then feeling her breasts. When she refused to have sex with him, she reported that he began to masturbate in front of her. The act led to a conviction of gross sexual imposition.

An immigrant identified as “L.M.” hired Armengau to represent her in divorce proceedings and advise her on immigration issues. During the course of his representation, he hired L.M. to perform office work to assist  in paying her legal bills.

L.M. testified that she and Armengau repeatedly engaged in sexual conduct over three years. She stated it was always under the implied threat that he might drop her case, which would cause her to lose her immigration status and custody of her daughter. Armengau was convicted of rape, kidnapping, and four counts of sexual battery with respect to L.M.

Appeals Delayed Disciplinary Action
A few months after his conviction, the Columbus Bar Association filed a complaint with the Board of Professional Conduct, alleging that Armengau committed ethical violations arising from his criminal convictions, his representation of multiple clients, and the management of his legal practice.

When the complaint was filed, Armengau was appealing his sentence and convictions to the Tenth District Court of Appeals. The board stayed the disciplinary proceedings until all his appeals had concluded. Armengau won the right to be resentenced. While Armengau’s appeal of his new sentence was pending in 2019, a board panel conducted a disciplinary hearing only on the charges related to his criminal convictions.

The panel ruled Armengau violated two professional conduct rules: the prohibition on committing illegal acts that adversely reflect on his honesty and trustworthiness, and engaging in conduct that adversely reflects on his fitness to practice law. The panel and board recommended he be permanently disbarred.

Armengau objected to the findings and sought to further postpone his disciplinary case as he pursued more appeals. The Court remanded the case to the board with instructions to stay the disciplinary proceedings until all direct appeals of his convictions had concluded. Armengau was released from prison in 2023, and in April 2025, the board learned that all of Armengau’s direct appeals of his convictions had concluded.

The board again recommended that the Supreme Court disbar Armengau.

Supreme Court Considered Attorney’s Objections
Armengau raised four objections to the board’s recommendation and argued he should be able to return to the practice of law.

In addition to claiming he was actually innocent, which the Court rejected, he argued that disbarment is an inappropriate sanction and that other attorneys who committed similar misconduct received indefinite suspensions. He noted the board based the recommendation on two cases in which attorneys were disbarred for sex crimes.

Armengau indicated that in those cases, the attorneys preyed on children and admitted to committing the crimes of which they were convicted. In contrast, he argued, his offenses involved adult women, and he has maintained his innocence. He also noted that two other attorneys convicted of sex crimes involving minors received indefinite suspensions.

The Court stated the most significant difference between the cases resulting in an indefinite suspension and a disbarment was that the disbarred attorneys were convicted of crimes using force, the threat of force, or extreme forms of coercion to compel their victims to submit to their sexual demands.

Armengau was convicted of nine felony sex offenses, and each involved the use of force, threat of force, or coercion, the opinion noted. His crimes “arose from his practice of law and victimized those who had sought his professional help,” the opinion stated.

The Court acknowledged that while in prison, Armengau provided helpful assistance to other inmates, including teaching some Spanish and how to conduct legal research. Following his release, he “provided thoughtful human services to drug-dependent people – connecting them with resources” and other services without compensation, the opinion noted. He also provided 13 letters of support, which described him as a “highly competent, diligent, and tenacious attorney committed to his clients.”

However, the Court found the evidence of his character did not overcome the significant concerns regarding his trustworthiness and moral qualifications to practice law. In addition to his disbarment, the Court ordered Armengau to pay the costs of his disciplinary proceedings.

2019-0500. Columbus Bar Assn. v Armengau, Slip Opinion No. 2026-Ohio-1230.

View oral argument video of this case.

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.