Submitted March 1, 2017
Certified Report by the Board of Professional Conduct of the
Supreme Court, No. 2016-015.
J. Drexel, Disciplinary Counsel, and Jennifer A. Bondurant,
Assistant Disciplinary Counsel, for relator.
Buckingham, Doolittle & Burroughs, L.L.C., and Peter
Thomas Cahoon, for respondent.
1} Respondent, Andrew Osyp Martyniuk, of Kent, Ohio,
Attorney Registration No. 0064997, was admitted to the
practice of law in Ohio in 1995. On November 20, 2015, we
suspended his license to practice for an interim period
pursuant to Gov.Bar R. V(18)(A)(1)(a) upon receiving notice
that he had been convicted of multiple felonies. In re
Martyniuk, 144 Ohio St.3d 1265, 2015-Ohio-4746, 45
2} In April 2016, relator, disciplinary counsel,
charged Martyniuk with violations of Prof.Cond.R. 8.4(b)
(prohibiting a lawyer from committing an illegal act that
adversely reflects on the lawyer's honesty or
trustworthiness) and 8.4(h) (prohibiting a lawyer from
engaging in conduct that adversely reflects on the
lawyer's fitness to practice law) based on his criminal
conduct. The Board of Professional Conduct found that
Martyniuk committed the charged misconduct and recommended
that he be indefinitely suspended from the practice of law
with no credit for the time served under his interim felony
suspension. We adopt the board's findings of fact,
misconduct, and aggravating and mitigating factors and its
3} On September 29, 2014, Martyniuk pleaded guilty
to 20 fourth-degree-felony counts of pandering sexually
oriented material involving a minor in violation of R.C.
2907.322(A)(5). Martyniuk stipulated that he had knowledge of
the character of the material or performance involved and
that he knowingly solicited, received, purchased, exchanged,
possessed, or controlled material that showed a minor
participating or engaging in sexual activity, masturbation,
or bestiality. As a result of that conduct, he was sentenced
to a five-year prison term, which was suspended on the
condition that he serve five years of community control,
complete a sex-offender evaluation and follow all the
evaluator's recommendations, and pay a fine of $5, 000
plus court costs. He was also required to register as a Tier
II sex offender for a period of 25 years.
4} The parties stipulated that Martyniuk's
conduct adversely reflects on his fitness to practice law in
violation of Prof.Cond.R. 8.4(h), and the matter proceeded to
a hearing before a three-member panel of the board.
Consistent with our decision in Disciplinary Counsel v.
Bricker, 137 Ohio St.3d 35, 2013-Ohio- 3998, 997 N.E.2d
500, the board expressly determined that Martyniuk's
conduct involving pornographic materials relating to minors
was sufficiently egregious to warrant finding the violation.
It also found that by engaging in that criminal conduct, he
committed an illegal act that adversely reflects on his
honesty and trustworthiness in violation of Prof.Cond.R.
5} We adopt the board's findings of fact and
6} When imposing sanctions for attorney misconduct,
we consider several relevant factors, including the ethical
duties the lawyer violated, the aggravating and mitigating
factors listed in Gov.Bar R. V(13), and the sanctions imposed
in similar cases.
7} The parties stipulated and the board found that
just one aggravating factor is present-Martyniuk committed
multiple offenses. See Gov.Bar R. V(13)(B)(4). And
the parties agree and the board found that the applicable
mitigating factors include the absence of a prior
disciplinary record, Martyniuk's full and free disclosure
(including his November 2015 self-reporting of his
convictions to relator) and cooperative attitude in the
disciplinary proceedings, his acknowledgment of the ...