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

Troy, Lake Cty. Bar Assn. v.
130 Ohio St.3d 110, 2011-Ohio-4913. Decided 9/29/2011.
Case Summaries- 339
Respondent neglected client matters, failed to provide competent representation, failed to keep his clients
informed, engaged in dishonest conduct, and failed to cooperate in the disciplinary investigation.
Respondent failed to file an answer, so the case was assigned a master commissioner who made the
following findings of fact, conclusions of law, and recommended an indefinite suspension. In Count 1,
respondent took a retainer and additional money in a divorce case, but failed to file any of the necessary
paperwork or motions for the case. He failed to respond to inquiries and later told the client that he had
referred the case to another attorney, which was untrue. In Count 2, respondent stopped communicating
with a client after receiving full payment, and failed to file any of the necessary paperwork in her
case. In Count 3, respondent lost a malpractice claim, but the insurer refused to pay because respondent
had let the policy lapse and had not reported the claim prior to the policy lapsing. Respondent did
not notify his client of this fact. This conduct violated Prof.Cond.R. 1.1 (competent representation), 1.3
(diligence and promptness), 1.4 (keep client reasonably informed), 8.4(c) (dishonesty, fraud, deceit, or
misrepresentation), and Gov.Bar R. V(4)(G) (failure to cooperate). The Court adopted these findings.
Although the board found no prior discipline as a mitigating factor, respondent had both an attorney
registration suspension and a prior board suspension. In aggravation, respondent engaged in a pattern of
misconduct involving multiple offenses, harmed vulnerable clients, failed to cooperate, and failed to
make restitution. BCGD Proc.Reg. 10(B)(1)(c), (d), (e), (g), (h), (i). The board adopted the master
commissioner‘s recommended sanction. Citing Kaplan (2005), Troxell (2011), and Van Sickle (2011),
the Court agreed and issued an indefinite suspension with an order to pay restitution to all three clients
within 30 days.
Rules Violated: Prof.Cond.R. 1.1, 1.3, 1.4, 8.4(c); Gov.Bar R. V(4)(G)
Aggravation: (c), (d), (e), (g), (h), (i). Mitigation: NONE
Prior Discipline: YES (x2) Procedure/ Process Issues: NO Criminal Conduct: NO
Public Official: NO Sanction: Indefinite Suspension