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

Lape, Disciplinary Counsel v.
130 Ohio St.3d 273, 2011-Ohio-5757. Decided 11/10/2011.
Case Summaries- 168
Respondent neglected a client‘s matter, failed to safe guard the client‘s property, and failed to cooperate
in the ensuing disciplinary investigation. Respondent was hired to represent two clients in a
bankruptcy matter. The clients‘ debt was discharged, but respondent failed to return the clients‘ phone
calls about post discharge questions. Respondent also did not return the clients‘ papers to them
upon request. Upon inquiry by relator, respondent did not initially respond to relator‘s letters. She
eventually appeared at a deposition and said she had lost her clients‘ file. She agreed to help them,
but never did. Respondent failed to file a timely answer and did no respond until she was served with a
motion for default. This conduct violated Prof.Cond.R. 1.3 (reasonable diligence), 1.15 (safekeeping
and delivery of client‘s property), 1.16(d) (protecting clients during withdraw), 8.1(b) (failing to
respond in a disciplinary investigation), and Gov.Bar R. V(4)(G) (failure to cooperate). The Court
adopted these findings. The parties stipulated that respondent had no prior discipline as a mitigating
factor, however, she did have a previous attorney registration suspension, and thus her prior discipline is
an aggravating factor. BCGD Proc.Reg. 10(B)(1)(a). The parties stipulated to, and the board
recommended a six-month suspension, stayed on the condition of no further misconduct and 6 CLE
hours in law office management. Citing Zaffiro (2010) and Simon (2011), the Court adopted the
recommended sanction.
Rules Violated: Prof.Cond.R. 1.3, 1.15, 1.16(d), 8.1(b), Gov.Bar R. V(4)(G)
Aggravation: (d), (e), (h)
Mitigation: (a), (g)
Prior Discipline: NO Procedure/ Process Issues: YES Criminal Conduct: NO
Public Official: NO Sanction: Six-month suspension, stayed