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

Raso, Disciplinary Counsel v.
129 Ohio St.3d 277, 2011-Ohio-2900. Decided 6/22/2011.
Case Summaries- 267
Respondent neglected a legal matter entrusted to him, failed to keep the client reasonably informed about
the status of the matter, and lied to his client about the finalization of a pending case. The parties
stipulated to following facts and misconduct, which the board and Court adopted. In Count 1,
respondent accepted a retainer to file a civil action on behalf of his client. The client received an award
of $8000, but it was offset by a $3000 counterclaim. Respondent did not attempt to collect the
judgment, and pretended the case was still ongoing by sending the client documents that he had
purportedly filed. The trial court eventually closed the case, as no action had been taken on it. Not
until after relator began its investigation, over 4 years later, did respondent collect the arbitration award
of $5500. In Count 2, a client paid respondent to pursue a small-claims action. Respondent did not
file the action, nor did he return the fee despite the client‘s requests. The client eventually obtained new
counsel to pursue a refund; respondent continuously made false representations to the client, including
telling him that the check was in the mail. After relator began its investigation, respondent
refunded the money. Respondent‘s conduct violated DR 1-102(A)(4), Prof.Cond.R. 8.4(c); 6-
101(A)(3), Prof.Cond.R. 1.3; and Prof.Cond.R. 1.4(a)(3) with respect to Count 1, and DR 6-101(A)(3),
Prof.Cond.R. 8.4(c) with respect to Count 2. In mitigation, respondent had no prior disciplinary record,
made timely, good-faith restitution, provided full and free disclosure to the board, and displayed a
cooperative attitude. BCGD Proc.Reg. 10(B)(2)(a), (c), and (d). The Court noted that the restitution
mitigation is tempered, because respondent did not make it until after the disciplinary investigation
began; and that respondent did have his license suspended for failing to comply with the registration
rules in 2007. There were no factors in aggravation. Citing King (1996) and Stollings (2006), the
Court adopted the parties‘ stipulated, and the board‘s recommended, sanction of a six-month suspension.
Rules Violated: Prof.Cond.R. 1.3, 1.4(a)(3), 8.4(c); DR 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: Six-month suspension