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

Siehl, Disciplinary Counsel v.
123 Ohio St.3d 480, 2009-Ohio-5936. Decided 11/18/2009.
Case Summaries- 308
Respondent deserted an incarcerated client seeking post-conviction relief and failed to respond to the
disciplinary investigation. Upon granting relator‘s motion for default, a master commissioner made
findings, conclusions, and a recommendation all of which the Board adopted. As to Count I, in January
2008, respondent was appointed to represent an incarcerated client in post-conviction proceedings, but
when the client wrote to respondent in January and February asking to discuss the case, respondent filed
to respond and never filed anything on the client‘s behalf. Board found violations of Prof.Cond.R.
1.3 and 1.4(a)(3) and (4) for doing nothing for the client and a violation of Prof.Cond.R. 8.4(d) and
(h) by failing to honor his court appointment. As to Count II, during the disciplinary investigation
respondent ignored virtually all notice of that proceeding. He replied once in mid-August 2008 by
promising to ―take care of it‖ when relator‘s investigator personally delivered notice of the grievance.
Board found a violation of Prof.Cond.R. 8.1(b) and 8.4(d) and (h). In mitigation, there was no prior
discipline. BCGD Proc.Reg. 10(B)(2)(a). The Board found that this one mitigating factor did not warrant
a departure from Boylan (1999) in which an indefinite suspension was ordered for similar misconduct of
neglect and failure to cooperate by a court appointed attorney. The Supreme Court of Ohio agreed with
the findings, conclusions, and recommended sanction and so ordered an indefinite suspension.
Rules Violated: Prof.Cond.R. 1.3, 1.4(a)(3), 1.4(a)(4), 8.1(b), 8.4(d), 8.4(h)
Aggravation: NONE
Mitigation: (a)
Prior Discipline: NO Procedure/ Process Issues: NO Criminal Conduct: NO
Public Official: NO Sanction: Indefinite Suspension