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

Ita, Disciplinary Counsel v.
117 Ohio St.3d 477, 2008-Ohio-1508. Decided 4/3/2008.
Case Summaries- 136
Respondent and relator entered into a consent-to-discipline agreement recommending a public reprimand
for violations of DR 1-102(A)(5) and 6-101(A)(2). The consent-to- discipline agreement was adopted
by the panel, the board, and the Supreme Court of Ohio. In February 2003, respondent who was an
associate in a law firm took over representation of a personal injury client from a lawyer who left the
firm. The client had been injured in a motor vehicle accident in October 2002. Respondent learned from
reviewing his predecessor‘s interview notes that the client had been married at the time of the accident.
The notes did not disclose that the client, who later would file for divorce, was living separately from the
wife at the time of interview. Respondent did not ask the client about his marital status and did not
consult the wife. In October 2004, respondent filed the complaint and without consent, included the wife
as a party asserting a claim for loss of consortium. By September 2005 the defense had offered a
settlement. While discussing the settlement offer with the client, respondent explained that both the client
and the wife would be required to sign the settlement agreement. The client said he was separated and he
did not want his wife to be a party to the settlement agreement. Respondent reviewed the file and
realized that the wife had not signed a fee agreement with the law firm and had not had any contact at all
with the law firm. Respondent explained to the client that the defendant would likely require the client to
indemnify the defendant for the loss-of-consortium claim. Defendant‘s counsel agreed to pay the
$15,000 settlement if the client dismissed the wife‘s consortium claim with prejudice and agreed to
indemnify the defendant for the potential value of that loss. Respondent accepted these terms on the
client‘s behalf and the settlement was consummated and the court was advised of the agreement. In
September 2005, respondent filed an entry of voluntary dismissal with prejudice. The client later filed
for divorce, and in November 2005, the wife discovered she had been a party to his lawsuit, and the court
had dismissed her claim with prejudice. Respondent, who never represented the wife and had no
authority to file and then dismiss a claim on her behalf, violated DR 1-102(A)(5) and 6-101(A)(2).
Accepting the consent to discipline agreement, the Supreme Court of Ohio ordered a public reprimand
for violations of DR 1-102(A)(5) and 6-101(A)(2).
Rules Violated: DR 1-102(A)(5), 6-101(A)(2)
Aggravation: NONE
Mitigation: NONE
Prior Discipline: NO Procedure/ Process Issues: NO Criminal Conduct: NO
Public Official: NO Sanction: Public Reprimand