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

Leneghan, Cuyahoga Cty. Bar v.
117 Ohio St.3d 103, 2008-Ohio-506. Decided 2/14/2008.
Case Summaries- 178
Respondent failed either to pursue a client‘s criminal appeal or to properly withdraw from the case.
He was hired in March 2004 to defend a woman against three charges in municipal court. She paid $500
in attorney fees and contributed $50 to his campaign fund. The fee agreement was not in writing. He
represented her at her June 23, 2004 jury trial. The jury returned a guilty verdict and the court ordered
a $500 fine and sentenced her to 180 days in jail, suspending both the fine and the jail sentence pending
appeal. The couple authorized respondent to file an appeal. Respondent did not specify his fee or ask for
payment at that time. He estimated the cost of $1,000 to $1,500 depending on the cost of the trial
transcript and he promised to get back to her with an exact figure. He timely appealed the conviction, but
after filling a notice of appeal, docketing statement, and praecipe, he did nothing more in the case, even
after the court ordered verification of when the trial court journalized the entry of conviction. In
September 2004, the court of appeal dismissed the appeal, citing appellant‘s failure to file a copy of a
journalized sentencing order. Upon the dismissal of the appeal, the municipal court summoned the client
to appear. She called respondent the day before her court date and learned for the first time of the
dismissal of the appeal. Respondent advised the court he could not appear with the client due to a
conflict in his schedule. When he failed to appear, the client decided to find another attorney. The court
continued the case. Ultimately, she was ordered to serve 60 days in jail and paid nearly $1,000 in fines
and court costs. Board adopted panel‘s finding that respondent violated DR 6-101(A)(3). Supreme Court
of Ohio adopted Board‘s finding of a violation of DR 6-101(A)(3) for not advising the court of appeals he
was withdrawing as her attorney and not timely notifying the client when the court of appeals dismissed
the case. His neglect cost the client the opportunity to challenge her conviction. In mitigation, he has no
prior disciplinary record and he did not act from a selfish or dishonest motive. BCGD Proc.Reg.
10(B)(2)(a), (b). Weighing against the mitigating factors, are his failure to acknowledge wrongdoing and
his lack of insight. BCGD Proc.Reg. 10(B)(1)(g). Relator asserted that respondent lied about whether
he received timely notice of relator‘s complaint and whether he agreed to represent the client after her
conviction. But, the court gave deference to the panel‘s assessment of respondent‘s credibility and
overruled relator‘s objections that respondent should receive an actual suspension. The court accepted the
Board‘s recommended sanction of a public reprimand. Two justices dissented in favor of stayed sixmonth
suspension.
Rules Violated: DR 6-101(A)(3)
Aggravation: (c), (d), (e)
Mitigation: (a), (b), (d), (e), (g)
Prior Discipline: NO Procedure/ Process Issues: YES Criminal Conduct: NO
Public Official: NO Sanction: Public Reprimand