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

Case Summaries- 351
Chandlers to discover whether there was any means to aid them in avoiding pending foreclosure—
respondent was involved in the cases only to the extent he filed responsive pleadings in court. In
mitigation, there is no prior discipline, he cooperated, and submitted three letters as to his character and
reputation. BCGD Proc.Reg. 10(B)(2)(a), (b), (d), and (e). In aggravation, there was vulnerability and
harm to the clients which the Board found outweighed the mitigation. The court also found as
aggravating factors that he committed multiple offenses in his representation of each client and he
engaged in a pattern of misconduct in representing 28 referred clients over a two-and-a-half year period.
BCGD Proc.Reg. 10(B)(1)(c), (d). The court compared the case to Mullaney (2008) involving three
attorneys who entered agreement with Foreclosure Solutions, LLC, one received a public reprimand, a
second attorney who was not admitted to practice in Ohio, received an injunction prohibiting him from
appearing pro hac vice in the state for two years, and a third attorney was given a one-year suspension all
stayed. But the court found respondent‘s conduct more egregious warranting a more severe sanction
because respondent concluded it was too late to help the Chandlers, but took the case anyway, accepted
the fee, and filed a boilerplate motion without communicating with the Chandlers. The court rejected
the Board‘s recommended sanction of one year stayed upon conditions. The court ordered a suspension
for one year with six months stayed on condition of no further misconduct. Two justices dissented in
favor of a one year suspension stayed upon conditions.
Rules Violated: DR 2-103(C), 3-101(A), 3-102(A), 3-103(A), 6-101(A)(2), 7-101(A)(1)
Aggravation: (c), (d)
Mitigation: (a), (b), (d), (e)
Prior Discipline: NO Procedure/ Process Issues: NO Criminal Conduct: NO
Public Official: NO Sanction: One-year suspension, 6 months stayed