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

Williams, Columbus Bar Assn. v.
129 Ohio St.3d 603, 2011-Ohio-4381. Decided 9/7/2011.
Case Summaries- 354
Respondent neglected client matters, failed to provide competent representation and reasonably
communicate with clients, and failed to withdraw from representation when his mental condition
impaired his abilities and perform the obligations of appointed counsel. This case was originally
offered as a consent-to-discipline case, which was rejected by the Court; it was twice remanded
to the board to either correct an error or to consider a more severe sanction. The parties
stipulated to the facts and misconduct. Respondent was appointed to appeal a man‘s rape
conviction. Respondent did appear, but later failed to file an appellate brief, and the case was
dismissed. Respondent admitted that he should have filed a brief, but that he suffered from
depression and frequently used marijuana. In the second count, respondent was appointed to
defend a defendant charged with aggravated robbery and aggravated murder. Respondent did
not appear for trial, and testified that he just did not leave his office when it was time to go to
trial. This conduct violated Prof.Cond.R. 1.1 (competent representation), 1.3 (reasonable
diligence), 1.4(a)(1) (informed consent to client), 1.4(a)(2) (reasonable consultation with client),
1.4(a)(3) (keep client reasonably informed), 1.4(a)(4) (comply with reasonable requests for
information), 1.16(a)(2) (requiring withdraw when lawyer‘s wellness impairs lawyer‘s ability),
and 6.2 (failing to avoid appointment when not doing so would violate the Prof.Cond.R.). The
Court agreed with the above findings. In aggravation, respondent committed multiple offenses
and harmed vulnerable clients. BCGD Proc.Reg. 10(B)(1)(d), (h). In mitigation, respondent
lacked a prior disciplinary record, lacked a dishonest or selfish motive, and cooperated with the
disciplinary process. BCGD Proc.Reg. 10(B)(2)(a), (b), (d). Although the respondent testified at
great length about his depression and use of marijuana, the board did not find it to be a
mitigating factor. The parties originally stipulated to a two-year suspension, stayed on the
condition of completion of his OLAP contract. The board recommended a two-year suspension,
stayed with the conditions of 2 years of monitored probation, submit to random drug testing, and
complete his OLAP contract. Citing Gresley (2010), the Court found that respondent‘s
misconduct was not as egregious as Gresley‘s, and thus adopted the board‘s recommended
sanction, with the added condition that respondent refrain from drug or alcohol use.
Rules Violated: Prof.Cond.R. 1.1, 1.3, 1.4(a)(1), 1.4(a)(2), 1.4(a)(3), 1.4(a)(4), 1.16(a)(2), 6.2
Aggravation: (b), (h)
Mitigation: (a), (b), (d)
Prior Discipline: NO Procedure/ Process Issues: NO Criminal Conduct: NO
Public Official: NO Sanction: Two-year suspension, stayed