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

Johnson, Cuyahoga Cty. Bar Assn. v.
123 Ohio St.3d 65, 2009-Ohio-4178. Decided 8/26/2009.
Case Summaries- 145
Respondent failed to respond to court filings and appear in court on a client‘s behalf and failed to advise
the client that she lacked professional liability insurance. Respondent had practiced law for
approximately nine years, mostly criminal law. In April 2005, she agreed to represent an elderly client
pursue a civil claim for lost or damaged property against Able One Moving Company (―Able One‖).
Respondent filed the complaint and Able One filed a counterclaim for $4,000 in unpaid storage fees.
Respondent replied to the counterclaim; but did not obtain the client‘s response to interrogatories, request
of production of documents, and requests for admission. She failed to respond to the motion for summary
judgment. In May 2006, she failed to appear at final pretrial. On the day of pretrial, the court granted the
motion for summary judgment for Able One and awarded them $4,000. Respondent testified that she had
not received the order granting summary judgment and learned of it from the client. Afterward she
started to draft a motion to vacate judgment but did not finish it before going on maternity leave from
mid-July through August 2006. As a result of receiving notice that the client had filed a grievance, she
hesitated to file the motion without the client‘s express consent. She wrote the client in early October
2006 to ask whether she should file the completed motion to vacate. The client did not reply and
she did not file the motion. Board adopted the panel‘s finding that she violated DR 1-102(A)(5), 6-
101(A)(2), 6-101(A)(3), 7-101(A)(1), and 7-101(A)(2) and that she violated DR 1-104(A) and (B) by not
carrying malpractice insurance and failing to inform the client. In mitigation, she had no prior discipline,
she cooperated, she admitted and apologized for her ethical breaches, and expressed deep remorse for the
consequences to the client. The Board found no selfish motive and determined that the inaction and
neglect occurred from a combination of poor scheduling practices and competing personal and
professional demands. Respondent testified that her mother had moved out during 2006, leaving
respondent to care by herself for two children under two years old-her own infant and a foster child.
Respondent acknowledged that her commitment to her family compromised her practice at a time she was
defending clients in separate capital murder homicide, and rape trials and her secretary resigned. She
closed her practice and is now employed as the clerk of a municipal court. In aggravation was her
neglect of a series of responsibilities to the client. The Board did not weigh against her the fact that
she had not made restitution, because the board attributed the $4,000 judgment against the client in large
part to the client‘s reliance on independent advice from legal aid to stop paying storage fees to Able One.
Board adopted the panel‘s recommendation of a public reprimand. The court adopted the board‘s
findings, conclusions, and recommendation and so ordered a public reprimand. Two dissents in favor of
stayed six months suspension.
Rules Violated: DR 1-102(A)(5), 1-104(A), 1-104(B), 6-101(A)(2), 6-101(A)(3), 7-101(A)(1), 7-
101(A)(2)
Aggravation: (c)
Mitigation: (a), (b), (d)
Prior Discipline: NO Procedure/ Process Issues: NO Criminal Conduct: NO
Public Official: NO Sanction: Public Reprimand