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

Shuler, Disciplinary Counsel v.
129 Ohio St.3d 509, 2011-Ohio-4198. Decided 8/30/2011.
Case Summaries- 307
Respondent failed to act with reasonable diligence, keep the client informed about the matter, promptly
deliver property to his client, respond to the ensuing disciplinary investigation and engaged in conduct
that adversely reflects on his fitness to practice law. The parties stipulated to the facts, exhibits, and
misconduct. In Count One, respondent received a $10,000 retainer, which he billed against without
sending the client billing statements. Respondent later stopped communicating with the client and failed
to return unused retainer funds. Respondent failed to respond to relator‘s letter of inquiry, but later
cooperated and made restitution to his client. This conduct was found to have violated Prof.Cond.R.
1.3 (reasonable diligence and promptness); 1.4(a)(2), (3), and (4) (consult with a client concerning
objectives, keep the client reasonably informed and comply with reasonable requests for information);
1.15(d) (promptly deliver client‘s property); 8.1 (failing to respond in a disciplinary investigation);
8.4(h) (conduct that adversely reflects on the lawyer‘s fitness to practice law). In Count Two, respondent
agreed to represent a client in a defective materials case regarding the repair of a car. Respondent
received no fees, but eventually stopped communicating with his client. Respondent initially failed to
respond to the letter of inquiry regarding this misconduct. This conduct was found to have violated
Prof.Cond.R. 1.3 (reasonable diligence and promptness); 1.4(a)(2), (3), and (4) (consult with a client
concerning objectives, keep the client reasonably informed and comply with reasonable requests for
information); 1.15(d) (promptly deliver client‘s property); 8.1 (failing to respond in a disciplinary
investigation); 8.4(h) (conduct that adversely reflects on the lawyer‘s fitness to practice law). The Court
adopted these findings. There were no aggravating factors. In mitigation, respondent had no prior
disciplinary record, no dishonest or selfish motive, presented evidence of good character and had a
diagnosed mental illness. BCGD Proc.Reg. 10(B)(2)(a), (b), (e), (g). Respondent and relator agreed on a
six-month suspension, stayed on successful completion of a three-year OLAP contract. The panel,
board, and Court agreed. Citing Chambers (2010) and Rutherford (2006), the Court ordered the sixmonth
suspension, but stayed it on the conditions of completion of a three-year OLAP contract
and no further misconduct.
Rules Violated: Prof.Cond.R. 1.3, 1.4(a)(2), 1.4(a)(3), 1.4(a)(4), 1.4(c), 1.15(d), 8.1, 8.4(h)
Aggravation: NONE
Mitigation: (a), (b), (e), (g)
Prior Discipline: NO Procedure/ Process Issues: NO Criminal Conduct: NO
Public Official: NO Sanction: Six-month suspension, stayed