Written by 
MARION, OH – Looking closer, Marion Watch has found further troubling details regarding the conduct of local attorney Jack Herchel VanBibber, as a “First Amended Complaint and Certificate” filed by the Disciplinary Counsel of the Supreme Court of Ohio on May 15, 2025, lays bare a litany of serious new allegations. This document, building upon matters previously reported by this publication on May 17, 2025, paints an even more disturbing picture of alleged professional failings. These accusations, far from minor administrative errors, point towards a potential pattern of behavior that strikes at the core of legal ethics, including a fundamental neglect of client duties with potentially severe repercussions, the making of demonstrably false statements to judicial bodies and investigators which erodes the bedrock of legal integrity, engagement in improper sexual conduct that dangerously blurs professional and personal lines, and a repeated, seemingly defiant failure to cooperate with disciplinary authorities tasked with upholding the ethical backbone of the legal profession.As detailed in our previous coverage, Mr. VanBibber (Attorney Registration No. 0097242) is already operating under a two-year stayed suspension handed down by the Supreme Court of Ohio on May 7, 2024, for a series of prior infractions. That comprehensive report also covered the community support he had received during those earlier proceedings, notably a 2023 letter from Marion County Prosecutor Raymond Grogan, and touched upon broader questions regarding the administration of justice within the county. This letter adds further concern regarding the judgement and competence of the Marion Prosecutors Office. Among other serious issues with the office, dismissing and pleading cases tops the list of concerns locally. Marion Watch has been keeping an eye on this office and do not like what we have seen, as mentioned in our report regarding these subjects recently.
The new complaint is particularly alarming, not only for the gravity and breadth of the fresh accusations but also for its assertion that some of the alleged new misconduct commenced mere days after VanBibber’s disciplinary hearing for his prior case in June 2023. This timing, if accurate, suggests a profound disregard for the seriousness of the initial sanctions and a potential squandering of the opportunity for professional remediation, raising profound questions about his commitment to reform despite being under such intense scrutiny.
File Courtesy of Office of Disciplinary Counsel
The Supreme Court of Ohio https://odc.ohio.gov/ (must download on mobile devices)
Deep Dive into the First Amended Complaint (May 15, 2025)
The latest complaint meticulously outlines a pattern of alleged professional failings, adding significant weight to existing concerns.
Previous Discipline and OLAP Involvement: A Troubled Timeline and Questions of Candor
The May 7, 2024, Supreme Court disciplinary order, a significant censure in itself, explicitly mandated VanBibber to contact the Ohio Lawyers Assistance Program (OLAP), an organization specifically designed to help legal professionals struggling with personal issues like substance abuse that can impair their judgment and professional performance. An OLAP assessment conducted that same day resulted in a diagnosis of “mild-moderate substance abuse disorder.” This clinical finding alone should have served as a significant wake-up call, signaling an urgent need for immediate, thorough, and sincere engagement with recommended support systems and treatment. However, the complaint chillingly indicates that OLAP officials reportedly harbored serious doubts about VanBibber’s honesty and candor regarding his alcohol consumption—a crucial element in addressing any substance-related disorder effectively. Consequently, due to these profound concerns about his truthfulness and commitment to the recovery process, OLAP mandated a second, more comprehensive assessment from a certified drug and alcohol treatment center. According to the complaint, this crucial second assessment was not obtained until September 4, 2024—a delay of nearly four months. This significant and unexplained lag could easily be interpreted by disciplinary authorities as a profound reluctance, or even an unwillingness, to fully and honestly confront and address the serious issues identified by OLAP, further complicating his already tenuous probationary terms and casting substantial doubt on his commitment to the conditions of his stayed suspension.
Letters of Support in Prior Case – Including Full Text from Prosecutor Grogan
During the 2022-050 disciplinary proceedings, several individuals submitted letters of support for VanBibber in 2023. The full text of Marion County Prosecutor Raymond Grogan’s letter, dated June 2, 2023, is provided below:
Raymond Grogan 1540 Eagle Creek Drive South Marion, OH 43302
June 2, 2023
RE: Jack Van Bibber
Dear Panel Members:
Please accept this letter on behalf of Jack Van Bibber. I have known and worked with Jack for approximately two years.
Initially, please let me tell you that Jack. in my opinion, is a very good lawyer. He works hard for his clients. He is prepared for hearings. He knows the law; and when he doesn’t, he will research it. We have had a great need for court-appointed counsel in both our General Division and Juvenile Division and Jack has filled a vital role here in Marion in the past few years taking on court-appointed cases.
I have read the Complaint that has been filed against Jack. It is my understanding that Jack has made a series of bad decisions. He has driven without a license. He has driven without insurance. And, perhaps most troubling, it appears that Jack may have driven while he was intoxicated. Additionally, it appears that Jack was not very good at maintaining his IOL TA account.
All that being said, it is also my understanding that Jack has his license back and it is in good standing and valid. It is further my understanding that he now has insurance. What is more, I understand that Jack has taken several hours of CLE to learn and master the processes needed to maintain his IOLTA account.
Most importantly, however, is that Jack has taken full responsibility for his actions. As a prosecutor, I appreciate when folks take full accountability for their actions. It is a rarity in my business. Here in Marion, we have witnessed a former judge never take full responsibility for his actions. And it is my humble opinion that that former judge’s license should never be reinstated. Jack is different. He has owned his bad decisions. Paragraph 47 of the Complaint asserts that Jack stated, “I have flagrantly violated the law, and I take full responsibility for my actions.” Also, as indicated in paragraph 54 of the Complaint, Jack self-repo1ted his Crestline Mayor’s Court case. I have spoken with Jack about this instant matter, and he has never hesitated to take full responsibility for his actions. In short, Jack knows he screwed up and has acknowledged the same. It is this full acceptance, and his acknowledgment of his bad decisions that I as a prosecutor evaluate when trying to determine if an individual will repeat their behavior.
Finally. Jack has taken steps to correct his bad decisions. He was able to get his license valid. He has obtained insurance. He has also taken CLEs to ensure that his accounting practices are what they should be.
Other letters of support submitted in 2023 included those from:
- Carol from Ted Coulter Law (May 16, 2023)
- Jennifer J. Law (May 14, 2023)
- Jon Law (May 7, 2023)
- Attorney Joel M. Spitzer (June 4, 2023)
These endorsements from 2023 now stand in stark contrast to the fresh and serious allegations detailed in the May 15, 2025, First Amended Complaint.
The Shadow of the Warner Case: Another Test for Marion County’s Legal System
The ethical clouds gathering over Marion County’s legal practitioners are not limited to the current allegations against Mr. VanBibber. The case of former Marion County Common Pleas Judge Jason Warner serves as a stark, recent precedent of judicial misconduct that shook public confidence. In June 2020, Warner and his wife were involved in a hit-skip automobile accident where their vehicle, driven by Mrs. Warner, struck another car, causing serious injuries to its occupant. The Warners left the scene without rendering aid or contacting authorities, only reporting the incident hours later.
This led to felony convictions for Jason Warner for complicity to leaving the scene of an accident and complicity to tampering with evidence. Consequently, Warner resigned from his judicial position and was sentenced to two years in prison. The Supreme Court of Ohio subsequently indefinitely suspended his license to practice law. The prosecution of the Warners was handled by the Ohio Attorney General’s Office.
During these events, the issue of accountability within the local legal and judicial system was paramount. While Prosecutor Ray Grogan did not prosecute the Warner case directly, his 2023 letter in support of Jack VanBibber (detailed above) drew a pointed contrast. Grogan wrote, “Here in Marion, we have witnessed a former judge never take full responsibility for his actions. And it is my humble opinion that that former judge’s license should never be reinstated.” This reference, widely understood to mean Judge Warner, highlights Grogan’s expressed stance on the importance of accountability for public officials, a standard he believed VanBibber met at the time, but which he felt the former judge did not. The Warner case, alongside the ongoing concerns about VanBibber, contributes to the “systemic alarms” regarding the conduct and oversight of legal professionals in Marion County.
The New Storm: First Amended Complaint (May 15, 2025) – Detailed Allegations
The Disciplinary Counsel’s latest filing against VanBibber outlines a disturbing series of alleged actions occurring after his June 2023 disciplinary hearing.
Count One: Neglect, False Statements to Court, and Conduct Prejudicial to Justice in the Casto Case
The complaint details VanBibber’s alleged mishandling of the Casto v. Casto divorce and custody case in Fairfield County, painting a deeply concerning picture of alleged professional dereliction, client neglect, and outright deception directed at the court, with potentially devastating consequences for the family involved:
- Failure to Appear (July 25, 2023): VanBibber and his client, Matthew Casto, allegedly failed to appear for a critically important scheduled Guardian ad Litem (GAL)/Settlement Conference. Such conferences are pivotal moments in emotionally charged custody disputes, specifically designed to facilitate resolutions in the best interests of the children involved, often sparing them further turmoil. Their unexplained absence left opposing counsel (whose client had incurred the expense and effort to fly in from Florida), the GAL, and the court waiting, thereby wasting valuable judicial resources and, more importantly, potentially delaying justice and prolonging uncertainty for the families involved. This non-appearance can also unfairly prejudice a client’s case by creating a negative impression with the court or by allowing adverse decisions to be made in their absence.
- False Statements to Magistrate (August 8, 2023): During a subsequent hearing convened in part to address the prior non-appearance, VanBibber allegedly compounded the initial failure by falsely informing Magistrate Sandra Miller that a member of her staff had verbally permitted him to appear by phone or Zoom for the July 25 hearing. The complaint asserts, with supporting detail from court communications, that VanBibber’s assistant was actually informed by the court that a formal written motion was required for any such remote appearance—a standard and straightforward procedural step that was never taken. This alleged misrepresentation to a judicial officer is not a minor oversight; it is a serious breach of an attorney’s fundamental duty of candor to the tribunal, an ethical cornerstone designed to ensure the integrity of judicial proceedings.
- Scheduling Conflicts and Further Falsehoods: The complaint further alleges that VanBibber knew or should have known of a direct scheduling conflict between the Casto trial (Fairfield County) and a final hearing in an unrelated Marion County case (Schmelzer v. Hodges), both set for August 31, 2023. Diligently managing one’s professional calendar to avoid such conflicts is a basic tenet of competent legal practice, essential for ensuring adequate preparation and zealous representation for all clients. After his initial motion to continue the Casto trial was denied (with the court pointedly noting the Casto trial date had been established for nearly four months prior to his entry of appearance in the case, implying ample time to address conflicts), VanBibber filed a second motion. In this second attempt to secure a continuance, he allegedly falsely stated that the Casto hearing was scheduled after the Schmelzer matter. The complaint meticulously highlights the factual discrepancy: the Casto trial was scheduled on March 17, 2023, while the Schmelzer hearing was set much later, on June 30, 2023. Such a blatant misstatement of scheduling facts, if proven, could be viewed as a deliberate attempt to mislead the court simply to resolve his own scheduling dilemma, at the expense of truth and judicial efficiency.
- Failure to Appear (August 31, 2023): Despite his motion to appear via Zoom or telephone in Casto being denied (due to a reported car issue – a flat tire, which he claimed left him with no “backup method of transportation”), VanBibber still failed to appear for the Fairfield County trial. All other parties, including his client’s ex-wife who had again incurred the expense and effort to fly in from Florida, were present and prepared to proceed. Strikingly, and in stark contrast, he did manage to attend the Schmelzer hearing in Marion on the very same day. This disparity in attendance inevitably raises serious questions about his prioritization of cases, his respect for the Fairfield County court’s orders, and the efforts he was genuinely willing to make to meet his professional obligations, particularly when one client was left unrepresented at a crucial trial.
- Client Sanctioned Due to Attorney’s Actions: As a direct and foreseeable consequence of the missed July 25 hearing, Matthew Casto was ordered by the court to pay $800 in attorney fees to the opposing party—a financial penalty stemming directly from his counsel’s alleged non-appearance. The complaint further alleges that VanBibber failed to inform his client of this financial sanction for several weeks, leaving the client not only to bear the cost but also to remain unaware of a debt incurred due to his own lawyer’s alleged failings, potentially damaging the attorney-client relationship and trust. This sum was eventually paid by VanBibber himself in April 2024, but, critically, only at the Relator’s explicit request, long after the financial burden and potential stress had been imposed on his client.
- Pervasive Lack of Communication: Beyond these specific, glaring incidents, the complaint also alleges a significant and detrimental lack of communication from VanBibber with opposing counsel and the GAL in the Casto case over an extended period spanning August 2023 to January 2024. Effective, timely, and professional communication is absolutely vital for the efficient progression of legal matters. Its absence, as alleged here, can stall cases, prevent meaningful settlement discussions, increase costs for all parties involved, and generally frustrate the administration of justice by creating an environment of uncertainty and inefficiency.
This distressing pattern of conduct in just one case, if proven, would constitute clear and multiple violations of several core professional conduct rules, including those mandating diligence and promptness in representation, truthfulness to a tribunal, and refraining from actions prejudicial to the administration of justice. The cumulative effect of these alleged actions suggests a serious disregard for judicial process, client welfare, and the basic responsibilities of an attorney.
Count Two: Failure to Cooperate and False Statement to Relator – A Pattern of Defiance and Evasion
Stemming from Magistrate Miller’s deeply concerned report on his conduct in the Casto case, the Disciplinary Counsel (Relator) initiated an investigation into VanBibber’s actions—a standard procedure when judicial officers flag potential attorney misconduct. Count Two of the complaint details what appears to be a disturbing and consistent pattern of non-cooperation and outright falsehood directed at the very body charged with overseeing attorney conduct and upholding the standards of the profession in Ohio:
- Systematic Non-Cooperation: VanBibber repeatedly failed to provide timely or complete responses to the Relator’s legitimate inquiries, a fundamental obligation for any attorney under investigation. This alleged stonewalling was not a one-off oversight; it included ignoring a February 13, 2024, letter (even after specifically requesting and receiving an extension to respond, suggesting he was aware of the deadline and its importance), a follow-up March 19, 2024, email, and a subsequent April 1, 2024, letter that unequivocally and formally demanded a response. Such a persistent pattern of non-responsiveness strongly suggests a deliberate attempt to obstruct, delay, or otherwise frustrate the disciplinary process, which itself is a serious ethical breach.
- False Statement to Relator: When a response was finally, and belatedly, provided on April 16, 2024, VanBibber allegedly falsely reiterated his claim that his failure to file a motion to continue the July 25, 2023, Casto hearing was because his staff had been told he could appear via Zoom or telephone. This statement directly contradicts the court’s documented communication (which stated a motion was required) and mirrors the alleged falsehood told directly to Magistrate Miller. This indicates a troubling persistence in a narrative that appears to be factually unsupported, even when facing direct disciplinary inquiry from the body that could recommend severe sanctions.
- Further Non-Cooperation Regarding Financial Records: The alleged lack of cooperation extended significantly to inquiries about subpoenaed bank records from his Chase Operating Account—records essential for investigating potential mishandling of client funds or other financial improprieties which are often linked to other forms of misconduct. Regarding a June 17, 2024, letter from the Relator concerning these records, VanBibber allegedly failed to provide a timely or complete response. He reportedly offered explanations such as client files being in storage or that he needed bank records he hadn’t yet received from Chase Bank. This explanation is problematic on its face, given attorneys’ stringent professional obligations under Prof.Cond.R. 1.15(a) to maintain detailed, accurate, and accessible client and financial records for a period of seven years. The inability to promptly produce such records, or to provide a clear accounting, is a serious concern and a red flag for disciplinary bodies. Even after being provided copies of his own bank records by the Relator on August 30, 2024 (an act of assistance by the investigating body itself), a complete and satisfactory response was allegedly still not provided by VanBibber, further evidencing a pattern of evasion.
These actions, if substantiated, would potentially violate crucial rules against making false statements of material fact in connection with a disciplinary matter and knowingly failing to respond to a lawful demand for information from a disciplinary authority. An attorney’s duty to cooperate fully and honestly with such investigations is paramount to the integrity and effectiveness of the self-regulating nature of the legal profession. Failure to do so is viewed as a serious affront to the system designed to protect the public and maintain the profession’s standards.
Count Three: Improper Relationship with Client Leann Weaver and False Statements – A Profound Breach of Trust and Truth
This count delves into deeply personal and ethically fraught territory, detailing an alleged improper sexual relationship with a client, Leann Weaver, and subsequent, calculated false statements apparently designed to conceal the true nature and ethically problematic timing of this relationship, thereby misleading both a judge and disciplinary authorities:
- Relationship Commencement During Active Representation: Leann Weaver retained VanBibber in May 2022 to represent her in a sensitive and likely emotionally charged custody matter. The complaint alleges that approximately three weeks after this professional engagement began—a point at which his fiduciary duties to her were firmly established and her reliance on his professional judgment was paramount—VanBibber initiated personal contact with Weaver via Snapchat, a platform known for its ephemeral messaging which can sometimes be used to obscure communication trails. This contact allegedly escalated quickly into a dating and sexual relationship, all while he was actively representing her legal interests in an ongoing case. The inherent power imbalance in an attorney-client relationship makes such concurrent relationships highly problematic and ripe for potential exploitation, as the client’s emotional vulnerability and dependence on the attorney for critical legal outcomes can be compromised, clouding their judgment and potentially leading to decisions not in their best legal interest. The two subsequently had a child together in November 2023, further complicating the personal and professional entanglement and the ethical considerations involved.
- Instructions to Mislead and Obfuscate: The complaint further alleges a particularly calculating act: that VanBibber instructed Weaver to misrepresent the timeline of their relationship if anyone ever asked. Specifically, he allegedly told her to say their relationship predated the start of his legal representation. This alleged instruction suggests not only an awareness of the ethical impropriety of initiating a sexual relationship with a current client but also a premeditated attempt to preemptively cover it up and deceive any future inquiries from the court, opposing counsel, or disciplinary bodies.
- False Statements to a Judge and Disciplinary Counsel:
- In December 2022, during court proceedings related to Weaver’s custody case, VanBibber allegedly falsely told Judge Larry Heiser that his relationship with Weaver began in April 2022. This specific date (April 2022) would have conveniently placed the start of their personal relationship before she officially became his client in May 2022, thereby attempting to frame the relationship as permissible under ethical rules that allow for representation if a consensual sexual relationship pre-existed the attorney-client relationship. Such a statement, if false, represents a direct deception of a judicial officer in open court.
- This alleged falsehood was then repeated, according to the complaint, in an April 2023 response to the Relator. At that time, the Relator was investigating Judge Heiser’s grievance about the relationship. VanBibber, responding through his own counsel, again allegedly falsely stated the relationship began in April 2022. This misrepresentation, the complaint states, had a direct and significant impact, leading to the initial disciplinary investigation into this specific matter being prematurely and improperly terminated based on false information, thereby subverting the disciplinary process itself.
- New Grievance Revives Investigation: The truth, however, often finds a way to surface, particularly when relationships sour. Weaver reportedly ended her relationship with VanBibber in October 2024. Subsequently, her father, Terrance Weaver, filed a new grievance against VanBibber in March 2025. This new complaint brought the alleged true timeline and nature of the relationship back to the Disciplinary Counsel’s attention, leading to the reopening of this critical line of inquiry and the current, more detailed charges.
This alleged conduct, if proven, would represent serious violations of fundamental professional ethics, specifically Prof.Cond.R. 1.8(j). This rule unequivocally prohibits a lawyer from soliciting or engaging in sexual activity with a client unless a consensual sexual relationship existed between them before the client-lawyer relationship commenced. The rule is in place to protect clients from potential undue influence and exploitation, recognizing the vulnerability of clients and the power an attorney holds. Additionally, the alleged false statements made to Judge Heiser and subsequently to the Relator constitute grave violations of rules requiring absolute truthfulness to a tribunal and complete honesty in disciplinary matters. Such actions not only breach trust but actively undermine the integrity of legal proceedings and the entire disciplinary process itself.
Count Four: Inappropriate Conduct with Client’s Significant Other (Jessica Hartman) and Failure to Cooperate – A Disturbing Lack of Judgment and Respect
The final count detailed in the complaint involves alleged grossly inappropriate and sexually explicit messages sent to Jessica Hartman, the significant other of another client, Joshua Miller. This is coupled with what the Disciplinary Counsel portrays as a now-familiar pattern of non-cooperation with the ensuing investigation, suggesting a consistent disregard for accountability and the seriousness of disciplinary inquiries:
- Grossly Inappropriate Snapchat Messages: On April 9, 2024, a mere few weeks after Joshua Miller retained VanBibber for a child support matter (a meeting at which Hartman was not only present but also paid a portion of VanBibber’s fee, establishing her connection to the professional engagement and placing her within the sphere of his professional interactions), VanBibber allegedly sent Hartman a series of unsolicited, unprofessional, and shockingly sexually explicit messages via Snapchat. The complaint quotes messages that are crude and predatory, such as, “I want to fucking rail you. I want to fuck you as hard and fast as I can and I’ve wanted to since the moment I saw you.” Such language from an attorney, particularly directed towards his client’s partner with whom he had professional interactions and who was involved in facilitating the representation, is deeply inappropriate. It demonstrates a profound lack of professional judgment, a complete disregard for appropriate boundaries, and a potential abuse of the access and trust his professional role provided.
- Admission and Further Inappropriate Invitation: When Hartman, understandably disturbed and likely feeling vulnerable given VanBibber’s position as her partner’s attorney, confronted VanBibber about these shocking messages, he allegedly admitted to being intoxicated at the time he sent them—an excuse often used but rarely sufficient to mitigate such egregious behavior in a professional context. However, rather than offering an unequivocal and sincere apology and ceasing such conduct immediately, he reportedly stated that he “meant what he had said” in his messages, essentially reaffirming his offensive desires and showing no remorse. He then allegedly compounded the misconduct by inviting Hartman to his office after hours for a sexual encounter. This sequence suggests not merely an isolated lapse in judgment potentially fueled by intoxication, but a more disturbing underlying attitude and a continued pattern of predatory and unprofessional behavior that leverages his professional position.
- Consistent Failure to Cooperate with Investigation: When this egregious conduct came to the attention of the Relator, VanBibber allegedly once again failed to cooperate with the investigation, mirroring the pattern alleged in other counts. He reportedly did not respond to the Relator’s Letters of Inquiry dated March 11, 2025, and a second letter dated April 8, 2025, both concerning the Hartman matter. Despite a subpoena being issued for a deposition and related documents—formal legal demands for information that attorneys are ethically bound to comply with—the required responses to these inquiries were reportedly not provided. This continues the theme of alleged obstruction and a refusal to engage meaningfully with the disciplinary process.
These actions are charged as violations of Prof.Cond.R. 8.1(b) [knowingly failing to respond to a demand for information from a disciplinary authority] and the broader, more encompassing Prof.Cond.R. 8.4(h) [engaging in conduct that adversely reflects on his fitness to practice law]. This latter rule is often invoked when an attorney’s conduct, even if not specifically itemized as a violation of another rule, is so egregious, so contrary to the character and standards expected of a lawyer, that it calls into question their basic fitness and suitability to remain a member of the bar. Soliciting a client’s significant other for sexual activity, especially using explicit, demeaning, and predatory language, clearly falls into this category of behavior that erodes public trust and demeans the legal profession as a whole.
A Deepening Pattern of Concern
These newly detailed allegations, if proven, would significantly compound the existing concerns about Mr. VanBibber’s fitness to practice law, painting a portrait of an attorney who allegedly operates with a consistent disregard for ethical rules, court orders, and the disciplinary process itself. The timing of some of these alleged actions, occurring so soon after his prior disciplinary hearing and while under the shadow of impending sanction, suggests a troubling lack of remorse or understanding of the gravity of his professional obligations and the seriousness of the disciplinary process. The repetition of similar misconduct, such as alleged false statements and failure to cooperate across multiple distinct matters, strengthens the argument that these are not isolated incidents but rather indicative of a more deeply rooted pattern of behavior.
As previously reported, the broader legal environment in Marion County, including the handling of cases by the Marion County Prosecutor’s Office and Prosecutor Grogan’s prior letter of support for VanBibber, continues to be a subject of public interest and scrutiny. The juxtaposition of past endorsements with current, severe allegations raises uncomfortable questions for the local legal establishment.
What Lies Ahead
The Board of Professional Conduct is now tasked with a meticulous and undoubtedly challenging review of this First Amended Complaint. Given the prior stayed suspension, which was explicitly conditional upon no further misconduct, any substantiation of these new, extensive allegations could lead to severe consequences for VanBibber. These could include the immediate activation of his previous two-year suspension, a longer period of actual suspension, or, in light of the cumulative and varied nature of the alleged misconduct, even permanent disbarment from the practice of law in Ohio.
The Disciplinary Counsel has formally requested that VanBibber be found in violation of the Ohio Rules of Professional Conduct and be sanctioned accordingly, a request that underscores the perceived severity and pervasive nature of the alleged infractions. The unfolding of this case will remain a critical focus for the Marion community and the Ohio legal profession, as it directly addresses the standards of integrity, honesty, and accountability expected from those entrusted with the privilege and profound responsibility of practicing law. The outcome will inevitably send a clear and resonant message regarding the profession’s commitment to upholding these standards and protecting the public.