The Supreme Court of Ohio has issued a suspension for Cleveland attorney Tyresha Brown-O’Neal, following her involvement in child-neglect cases. The suspension, lasting one year with six months stayed, stems from multiple instances of misconduct during her representation of parents accused of neglect.
According to the court's per curiam opinion, Brown-O’Neal violated ethical standards by submitting falsely notarized affidavits in juvenile court and making false statements. She also failed to attend several hearings and influenced another attorney to breach professional conduct rules.
The misconduct began in 2021 when Brown-O’Neal was hired to represent the mother and father of two minors. Despite a court order placing the children with others, she missed key hearings and claimed to have notarized documents without proper commission as a notary public.
Brown-O’Neal persuaded one child's father to sign an affidavit discrediting his own allegations against her clients without informing his attorney. She then convinced a colleague to notarize this affidavit under false pretenses.
Justices R. Patrick DeWine, Michael P. Donnelly, Melody Stewart, and Joseph T. Deters supported the opinion while Chief Justice Sharon L. Kennedy and Justice Patrick F. Fischer argued against staying part of the suspension. Justice Jennifer Brunner abstained from participation.
In January 2024, the Office of Disciplinary Counsel filed charges against Brown-O’Neal for direct communication with represented individuals and failing to serve written motions properly. Both parties agreed on certain facts regarding misconduct and mitigating factors such as her cooperation during proceedings and lack of prior discipline.
The Board of Professional Conduct recommended a one-year suspension with conditions due to aggravating circumstances like harm caused to vulnerable people by her actions. Neither party objected to this recommendation.
The Supreme Court highlighted that inducing another lawyer's misconduct warrants actual suspension, especially when done by someone holding a position of trust like Brown-O'Neal’s role as a 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,” stated the opinion.
This case is documented under Disciplinary Counsel v. Brown-O’Neal, Slip Opinion No. 2024-Ohio-5571.