Armengau was convicted in 2014 on nine felony counts including rape, kidnapping, gross sexual imposition, and sexual battery arising from attacks against three women — two of whom were his clients and one who was the mother of a client. The convictions involved a Venezuelan immigrant client who worked in his office to pay legal bills, another female client he represented in a criminal matter, and the mother of a client he represented on aggravated murder charges. A jury found that Armengau used force and coercion to compel the victims to submit to sexual acts, including an incident where he told one victim she would face 'a poor result in her legal matters if she did not perform oral sex.'
The court adopted the Board of Professional Conduct's findings that Armengau's criminal convictions constituted clear and convincing evidence he violated two professional conduct rules: one prohibiting lawyers from committing illegal acts that adversely reflect on their honesty and trustworthiness, and another barring conduct that adversely reflects on fitness to practice law. 'Armengau's convictions are conclusive evidence that he committed illegal acts that adversely reflect on his trustworthiness,' the court wrote, rejecting his attempts to challenge the convictions in the disciplinary proceeding.
The court delivered its strongest rebuke to Armengau's continued claims of innocence, noting that 'a disciplinary proceeding is not an appropriate forum in which to collaterally attack a criminal conviction.' Despite character letters from 13 supporters and evidence of his rehabilitation work in prison, the justices emphasized that his 'multiple convictions for various felony sex offenses—committed against two clients and a family member of a third client—raise significant concerns regarding Armengau's trustworthiness and moral qualifications to practice law.'
The case had a complex procedural history spanning over a decade. After the Columbus Bar Association filed its disciplinary complaint in December 2014, proceedings were stayed multiple times pending Armengau's criminal appeals. The Board of Professional Conduct initially recommended permanent disbarment in 2019, but the Supreme Court remanded the case in 2020 after finding the board should have waited for all direct appeals to conclude. Armengau served nine and a half years in prison before his release in December 2023, and the disciplinary proceedings resumed in 2025.
Armengau argued that attorney Joseph R. Landusky II's letter stating that 'well-established precedent mandated reversal' of the convictions reflected 'common knowledge' of his innocence among the legal community. He also submitted polygraph results and additional character evidence. The court rejected these arguments, noting that Armengau 'persisted in submitting evidence and argument intended to collaterally attack the criminal convictions' despite orders prohibiting such relitigation, and that polygraph evidence is generally inadmissible without stipulation.
The court distinguished this case from others where attorneys received indefinite suspensions rather than permanent disbarment. Citing recent precedents including Disciplinary Counsel v. Goodman (permanently disbarring an attorney for sexual abuse of a 13-year-old) and Disciplinary Counsel v. Polizzi (permanent disbarment for sexual battery of students), the court noted that 'the most significant distinction between cases involving sexual misconduct that resulted in an indefinite suspension and those that resulted in permanent disbarment is that the attorneys who were disbarred were either convicted of gross sexual imposition or used force, the threat of force, or extreme forms of coercion.'
While acknowledging that Armengau had become 'a productive member of society' and helped other inmates and drug-dependent individuals after his release, the court concluded that his rehabilitation efforts were insufficient. The panel noted that while he submitted evidence that he had been 'around women daily' since his release without incident, 'Armengau's ability to engage in appropriate conduct with some women following his release from prison offers little assurance that the public—or his clients—would be safe if he were permitted to resume the practice of law.' The court dismissed the remaining 13 counts of the disciplinary complaint as moot.