The Supreme Court of Ohio today suspended a Marion attorney for two years for professional misconduct violations, including neglecting a client’s case and lying about it, and propositioning a client’s girlfriend online for sex.

The 6-0 per curiam opinion noted that Jack VanBibber was under a two-year stayed suspension issued by the Supreme Court in 2024 when the Office of Disciplinary Counsel charged him with new violations in May 2025. In this matter and the previous suspension, the Board of Professional Conduct found VanBibber failed to cooperate with disciplinary investigations.

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

Lawyer Sends Suggestive Snapchats
In March 2024, Joshua Miller hired VanBibber to represent him in a child support case involving Miller’s minor children. At the time, Miller was in a relationship with a woman identified in court records as “J.H.” The woman knew VanBibber from a prior legal matter and recommended him to Miller.

J.H. attended Miller’s meeting with VanBibber and paid a portion of VanBibber’s fee. A few days later, J.H. dropped off paperwork at VanBibber’s office and paid the remainder of his fee. Shortly after, VanBibber sent J.H. a Snapchat message asking whether she was single, and she replied that she was dating Miller.

The two exchanged a few more messages, and then J.H. asked VanBibber why he had asked if she was single. VanBibber told her that if she set her Snapchat app to “delete immediately,” he would tell her. After she indicated she changed the app’s setting, VanBibber sent her a graphic message telling her he wanted to have sex with her. The two exchanged a few more messages.

J.H. told Miller about the messages, and he was upset. Neither Miller nor J.H. believed they could fire VanBibber because the hearing in Miller’s case was just a week away. VanBibber represented Miller at the hearing. When J.H. asked VanBibber about the messages, he stated he was intoxicated when he sent them, but meant what he had said.

Disciplinary Counsel Learns of Messages
VanBibber’s Snapchat conversation with J.H. came to the disciplinary counsel’s attention while the office was investigating another grievance, which also involved J.H. The disciplinary counsel obtained from J.H. images of the Snapchat messages with VanBibber.

The disciplinary counsel sent a letter of inquiry to VanBibber regarding messaging J.H., including screenshots of their Snapchats. VanBibber requested more information from the office. The disciplinary counsel replied and gave him two weeks to respond. VanBibber did not respond in two weeks, so the office sent a second letter. VanBibber ultimately appeared for a deposition, but never responded to the letters of inquiry.

The disciplinary counsel and VanBibber stipulated that the conversations violated the rule prohibiting a lawyer from engaging in conduct that adversely reflects on his fitness to practice law.

Deception Leads to Client Paying Ex-Wife’s Legal Fees
In July 2023, VanBibber agreed to represent Matthew Casto in a post-divorce child custody case. The hearing schedule for the case in the Fairfield County Domestic Relations Court had been set months earlier, including a July 25 settlement conference and an Aug. 31 early morning bench trial.

At the time he agreed to represent Casto, VanBibber also represented a client in a custody matter proceeding in Marion County Common Pleas Court. Weeks before taking Casto’s case, VanBibber had advised the court in Marion County that he would be available for a 9 a.m. hearing on Aug. 31. The two courthouses are about 80 miles apart.

VanBibber’s assistant asked the Fairfield County court whether VanBibber could appear for the conference and hearing via Zoom. The court told the assistant that VanBibber would need to file a motion to appear via Zoom.

VanBibber did not file a motion, and he did not inform Casto to appear at the conference. Both of them failed to appear on July 25. Casto’s ex-wife traveled from her residence in Florida to attend. The magistrate conducting the hearing called VanBibber’s office about his whereabouts, received no information, and did not hear from him until the rest of the parties concluded the conference.

At a later hearing, VanBibber falsely told the magistrate that he did not appear at the conference because court staff advised his office that he could appear by Zoom. The court ordered Casto to pay $800 for his ex-wife’s legal fees and travel to the conference that Casto and VanBibber did not attend.

VanBibber did not tell Casto about the payment order for weeks, and months later VanBibber made the $800 payment.

VanBibber waited weeks before informing both courts and the parties that he had a scheduling conflict on Aug. 31 and could not be in both courtrooms on the same morning.  He also made a false statement in a motion to continue the Casto trial.

Based on his representation of Casto, the board found he failed to act with reasonable diligence in representing a client, and knowingly made false statements to the court.

VanBibber failed to cooperate with the disciplinary counsel during the office's investigation into his representation of Casto and failed to provide the documents the office sought. The board found Vanbibber knowingly made false statements in connection with a disciplinary matter and failed to respond to information requested during a disciplinary investigation.

Supreme Court Considered Sanction
In determining the appropriate sanction for VanBibber, the Court noted he had been previously disciplined, committed multiple rule violations, submitted false statements, and did not cooperate with disciplinary investigators. It also found he had a selfish and dishonest motive by making sexual advances toward a client’s significant other for his own personal gratification, and harmed a vulnerable client by failing to appear at the settlement conference and failing to inform Casto about the conference or the legal fee order.

The Court noted the suspension is based on repeatedly violating ethical rules, even while under investigation for those infractions.

“Much of the misconduct at issue in this case occurred during the pendency of VanBibber’s prior disciplinary case, which arose in part from his providing false information to law-enforcement officers in two counties,” the opinion noted.

In addition to the suspension, VanBibber was ordered to pay the costs of the disciplinary proceedings.

2025-1640. Disciplinary Counsel v. VanBibber, Slip Opinion No. 2026-Ohio-1271.

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.