disciplinary handbook: volume v - Supreme Court - State of Ohio

Hunt, Dayton Bar Assn. v.
127 Ohio St.3d 390, 2010-Ohio-6148. Decided 12/21/2010.
Case Summaries- 134
Respondent failed to act with reasonable diligence and promptness, failed to keep a client informed, and
failed to cooperate in the disciplinary process. A consent-to-discipline agreement was rejected by the
panel and a hearing was held. In Count One, respondent filed a complaint for two clients who hired him
to represent them in a medical negligence lawsuit. Respondent then subsequently failed to obtain an
expert witness, respond to discovery, or respond to separate motions for summary judgment. As a
result the case was dismissed, but respondent did not notify his clients of the dismissal. On several
occasions, he also failed to respond to their inquiries during the representation. The board adopted
the panel‘s findings of violations of Prof.Cond.R. 1.3 and 1.4. Count Two was dismissed by relator
prior to the hearing. In Count Three, another client retained respondent in a divorce proceeding.
Respondent failed to communicate with her and filed an answer to the complaint out of rule. The
client filed a grievance. Respondent failed to cooperate with the disciplinary investigation by ignoring
relator‘s repeated attempts to contact him by telephone and certified mail. The board adopted the
panel‘s finding of a violation of Gov.Bar R. V(4)(G). The court adopted these findings of fact and
conclusions of law. In aggravation, there are multiple offenses and a failure to cooperate in the
disciplinary investigation. BCGD Proc.Reg. 10(B)(1)(d) and (e). In mitigation, there is a lack of a
prior disciplinary record. BCGD Proc.Reg. 10(B)(2)(a). The parties originally stipulated to an 18-
month suspension, with the possibility of reinstatement after 6 months conditioned on a favorable
mental health evaluation. The panel rejected this stipulated violation and instead recommended a sixmonth
suspension. The panel noted that the stipulated sanction was inappropriate because the evidence
did not establish the conduct was the result of a medical or psychological infirmity. The board
adopted the panel‘s recommended sanction. Neither party objected to the recommended six-month
suspension. In Marosan (2006) an attorney received a six- month suspension for neglecting a case and
failing to cooperate in the disciplinary investigation. The Court agreed with the board‘s recommended
sanction and so ordered that respondent be suspended for six months.
Rules Violated: Prof.Cond.R. 1.3, 1.4; Gov.Bar R. V(4)(G)
Aggravation: (d), (e)
Mitigation: (a)
Prior Discipline: NO Procedure/ Process Issues: NO Criminal Conduct: NO
Public Official: NO Sanction: Six-month suspension