04.09.2014 Views

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

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

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

SHOW MORE
SHOW LESS

Create successful ePaper yourself

Turn your PDF publications into a flip-book with our unique Google optimized e-Paper software.

Sherman, Cleveland Metro. Bar Assn. v.<br />

126 <strong>Ohio</strong> St.3d 20, 2010-<strong>Ohio</strong>-2469. Decided 6/9/2010.<br />

Case Summaries- 306<br />

Respondent dismissed a cause <strong>of</strong> action without his client‘s consent and failed to notify another client that<br />

he lacked pr<strong>of</strong>essional liability insurance. Relator and respondent entered into a consent-to-discipline<br />

agreement. In January 2007, respondent agreed to represent a client in a personal injury case and<br />

filed a complaint. In November 2007, respondent dismissed the client‘s case without notifying the client<br />

or obtaining the client‘s consent; respondent believed the dismissal was in the best interest <strong>of</strong> the client.<br />

The parties stipulated that this violated Pr<strong>of</strong>.Cond.R. 1.2(a), 1.3 and 1.4(a)(3). In May 2007,<br />

respondent mistakenly failed to inform a second client that he did not maintain pr<strong>of</strong>essional-liability<br />

insurance. The parties stipulated that this violated Pr<strong>of</strong>.Cond.R. 1.4(c). The parties stipulated that<br />

there were no aggravating factors; in mitigation, there were lack <strong>of</strong> a prior <strong>disciplinary</strong> record, no<br />

dishonest or selfish motive, full and free disclosure and cooperation with the <strong>disciplinary</strong> process, and the<br />

respondent‘s temporary disability due to two major surgeries during the time <strong>of</strong> the misconduct. BCGD<br />

Proc.Reg. 10(B)(2)(a), (b), and (d). Pursuant to the consent-to-discipline agreement respondent would be<br />

suspended for nine months, all stayed. This sanction is consistent with the six-month stayed suspensions<br />

imposed in Drain (2008) and Thomas (2010). The Board recommended adoption <strong>of</strong> the consent-todiscipline<br />

agreement. The court accepted the consent-to-discipline agreement and so ordered that<br />

respondent be suspended for nine months, all stayed on the condition that he abstain from any further<br />

misconduct.<br />

Rules Violated: Pr<strong>of</strong>.Cond.R. 1.2(a), 1.3, 1.4, 1.4(a)(3)<br />

Aggravation: NONE<br />

Mitigation: (a), (b), (d)<br />

Prior Discipline: NO Procedure/ Process Issues: NO Criminal Conduct: NO<br />

Public Official: NO Sanction: Nine-month suspension, stayed

Hooray! Your file is uploaded and ready to be published.

Saved successfully!

Ooh no, something went wrong!