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

Johnson, Disciplinary Counsel v.
122 Ohio St.3d 293, 2009-Ohio-3501. Decided 7/23/2009.
Case Summaries- 144
Respondent lied to a client about having settled the client‘s personal injury action. A master
commissioner granted relator‘s motion for default and made findings, conclusions, and a
recommendation. In December 2004, respondent was retained by a client [Dowell] to recover damages
for injuries sustained in a November 2004 automobile accident with an agreement that respondent would
receive 33% of any amount recovered. Respondent contacted the insurance carrier to inquire about
settling the claim, but the insurer was uncooperative. Respondent had fruitless communication with the
insurer, obtained medical records, and towed away the vehicle after the accident. Respondent assured
Dowell that the ―legal matter was moving forward.‖ In Spring 2006, respondent falsely told Dowell that
the case was going to be resolved and she expected money soon and Dowell would have her money
―by Mother‘s Day.‖ The case never settled. The two- year statute of limitations lapsed, leaving Dowell
with no remedy against the tortfeasor. Respondent refused to meet with and stopped communicating with
Dowell. Respondent did not report the potential claim to her malpractice carrier. It is not evident
from the record whether Dowell pursued that relief. Respondent testified that she intended pay Dowell
with her own funds, but she never did. Board adopted the master commissioner‘s finding that respondent
violated DR 1-102(A)(4), 1-102(A)(5), 1-102(A)(6), and 6- 101(A)(3). The Supreme Court of Ohio
agreed. In mitigation, respondent registered inactive in November 2007, has not practiced since, and there
is no record of prior discipline. BCGD Proc.Reg. 10(B)(2). Respondent asserted that she has been
deeply depressed because of the death of a close relative, but the record does not establish evidence to
establish mitigating effect of mental disability under BCGD Proc.Reg. 10(B)(2)(g). Board adopted the
master commissioner‘s recommendation of a one-year suspension with six months stayed on probationary
conditions. The Board relied on Hickman (2005), Keller (2006), Stollings (2006) as precedent for the
sanction. The Supreme Court of Ohio agreed with the recommended sanction and ordered a one-year
suspension with six months stayed on condition of a successful completion of a six- month
probation in accordance with Gov.Bar R. V(9); with readmission conditioned upon undergoing a
mental-health examination and producing a report to establish mental fitness to return to the competent,
ethical, and professional practice of law.
Rules Violated: DR 1-102(A)(4), 1-102(A)(5), 1-102(A)(6), 6- 101(A)(3)
Aggravation: NONE
Mitigation: (a)
Prior Discipline: NO Procedure/ Process Issues: YES Criminal Conduct: NO
Public Official: NO Sanction: One-year suspension, 6 months stayed