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

Minamyer, Butler Cty. Bar Assn. v.
129 Ohio St.3d 433, 2011-Ohio-3642. Decided 7/28/2011.
Case Summaries- 215
Respondent failed to notify his client that he lacked malpractice insurance, neglected a legal matter, failed
to communicate with his client, and led a client to believe that her case was still pending when in fact it
had been dismissed. Respondent initially cooperated, but then failed to file an answer. A master
commissioner made findings of fact, conclusions of law, and recommended a two-year suspension with 12
months stayed. Respondent appeared at oral argument and objected to the findings of fact and sought to
introduce mental health mitigation. The case was remanded to the board to consider evidence on
respondent‘s post traumatic stress disorder (PTSD). The board then recommended a two-year suspension
with 18 months stayed, to which respondent again objected. Respondent filed a complaint for his client
and did some pretrial work, but failed to submit a pretrial statement or attend a pretrial. The case
was dismissed for failure to prosecute. Respondent led grievant that her case was still pending. The client
later discovered that the case had been dismissed and that respondent lacked liability insurance. This
conduct violated DR 1-104/ Prof.Cond.R. 1.4(c) (notifying a client about a lack of liability insurance), DR
6-101(A)(3)/ Prof.Cond.R. 1.3 (reasonable diligence), DR 1-102(A)(4)/ Prof.Cond.R. 8.4(c) (dishonest,
fraud, deceit, or misrepresentation), Prof.Cond.R. 1.4(a)(3) (reasonably informed about the status of the
matter), 1.4(a)(4) (respond to requests for information). The Court adopted these findings. In aggravation,
respondent committed multiple offenses, harmed a vulnerable client, and failed to cooperate in the
disciplinary process. BCGD Proc.Reg. 10(B)(1)(d), (e), (h). On remand, the respondent showed he
suffered from PTSD in mitigation and lacked a prior disciplinary record. BCGD Proc.Reg. 10(B)(2)(a),
(g). The panel reluctantly accepted this, stating that they believed respondent‘s attitude was to deny all
wrong- doing, but if there is wrong-doing, then it was because of the mental illness. Respondent sought a
second remand of this case, which the Court denied due to a lack of exceptional circumstances (See
Stephan (2006)). The Court, citing Lowden (2005) and respondent‘s extensive mental health
problems which were outlined in the psychiatrists report, modified the board‘s recommended sanction,
instead imposing a one-year suspension, stayed on the conditions that respondent serve one year of
probation, limit his practice to certain areas, continue to obtain treatment, and commit no further
misconduct. Justice Lundberg Stratton, in an 11-page concurrence, wrote separately to admonish the
examining psychiatrist‘s evaluation of respondent.
Rules Violated: Prof.Cond.R. 1.3, 1.4(a)(3), 1.4(a)(4), 1.4(c), 8.4(c); DR 1-104, 1-102(A)(4), 6-
101(A)(3)
Aggravation: (d), (e), (h)
Mitigation: (a), (g)
Prior Discipline: NO Procedure/ Process Issues: YES Criminal Conduct: NO
Public Official: NO Sanction: One-year suspension, stayed