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

Slavin, Cleveland Bar Assn. v.
121 Ohio St.3d 618, 2009-Ohio-2015. Decided 5/6/2009.
Case Summaries- 312
Respondent has been in private practice since 1980 mostly representing clients in juvenile and domesticrelations
matters, but occasionally taking personal-injury, bankruptcy, criminal, probate, collections, and
landlord-tenant cases. In 2003, he agreed to represent Pinkie McClinton in a personal-injury action
arising from an accident in Michigan where she fell in the aisle of a bus that stopped suddenly. In 2004,
he sent her medical records and bills to the bus company. He then neglected her case, not filing the case
until March 2006. In May 2006, the Cuyahoga County Court of Common Pleas granted the bus
company‘s motion to dismiss, finding the applicable statute-of-limitations had expired. On appeal, the
case was dismissed by the Eight District Court of Appeals when respondent failed to file the appeal
brief. The court of appeals granted reconsideration and respondent argued that Michigan‘s three-year
statute of limitation applied, but the appeals court affirmed the trial court‘s dismissal, holding the twoyear
deadline in R.C. 2305.10 applied. Respondent falsely told McClinton the parties had reached a
settlement and gave her a $2500 check drawn from his client trust account, an amount that he
thought represented as much as if not more that she realistically could have recovered. His trust
account contained client funds‘ as well as more than $170,000 of his own money. She expressed
concern over medical bills, so he paid her $2300 more from his trust account to cover the medical bills.
Respondent initially lied to relator‘s investigator that he had settled the case, but later admitted his
neglect and his lie to the client to conceal the neglect. Respondent admitted to the investigator that he
had not withdrawn his earned funds from the trust account and that the money paid to the client came
from the earned funds. He has now rectified the situation and keeps client funds separate from his funds.
Board adopted panel‘s findings that respondent violated DR 1-102(A)(6) for failing to inform the client
the case had been dismissed; 6-101(A)(3) for failing to conscientiously pursue the case, Prof.Cond.R.
8.4(c) because of untrue statements to the client, and 1.15 because of the commingling of client funds
with personal funds. In mitigation, there is no prior discipline, full and free disclosure and cooperation
after the initial misrepresentation to the investigator payment to the client, and establishment of good
character and reputation. BCGD Proc.Reg. 10(B)(2)(a), (c), (d), and (e). Also, he was genuinely
remorseful, he implemented office procedures to better track his clients‘ cases, and he remedied the
situation with his trust account. In aggravation are his lie to the client and initially to relator, his
selfish motive, and pattern of misconduct. BCGD Proc.Reg. 10(B)(1)(b), (c). Board adopted panel‘s
recommended sanction of a one-year suspension with the last six months stayed on condition of no
further misconduct. The Supreme Court of Ohio agreed with the findings and recommended sanction and
so ordered. Two dissents for a stay of the entire suspension.
Rules Violated: Prof.Cond.R. 1.15, 8.4(c); DR 1-102(A)(6), 6-101(A)(3)
Aggravation: (b), (c)
Mitigation: (a), (c), (d), (e)
Prior Discipline: NO Procedure/ Process Issues: NO Criminal Conduct: NO
Public Official: NO Sanction: One-year suspension, 6 months stayed