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

Yeager, Disciplinary Counsel v.
123 Ohio St.3d 156, 2009-Ohio-4761. Decided 9/17/2009.
Case Summaries- 361
Respondent misrepresented events three times in a juvenile court proceeding and abruptly quit the client‘s case
during one of the hearings. Respondent was admitted in 1989 and registered inactive on September 1, 2005.
The board served the complaint upon the Clerk of the Supreme Court of Ohio, after certified mail service went
unclaimed at her registration address in New York, New York. Upon relator‘s motion for default, the matter
was heard by a master commissioner whose findings and recommendation the board adopted. Respondent
represented the father of a minor child in a custody, visitation, and support proceeding filed by the child‘s
mother to modify certain court orders. On December 20, 2001, respondent moved to continue a scheduled
January 7, 2002 proceeding, citing scheduling conflicts. She advised the court she had been ―previously
scheduled‖ to appear on January 7 in municipal court and in common pleas court, domestic relations division.
The record shows that there were three court appearances (two in domestic and one in municipal, but that
these court appearances were scheduled after September 18, 2001, the day the juvenile court scheduled the
January 7, hearing. Two of the three appearances were scheduled in early December 2001, less than three
weeks before respondent filed her motion for continuance of the January 7, 2002 hearing. Respondent
misled the court to delay a ruling adverse to the client. Her motion to continue was never received by
opposing party and was not received by the court until the hearing date. The court denied the motion and
the January 7 hearing proceeded as scheduled and resulted in a new child-support order entered against
respondent‘s client. As to the second misrepresentation, respondent filed objections to a magistrate‘s decision
on child support issues and raised among other arguments that she had not received notice of the decision
denying the continuance and although she had not propounded formal or informal discovery requests, she
submitted an affidavit stating she requested discovery from the mother but did not receive a response.
Numerous motions were filed and answered. The magistrate tried to hold a hearing on motions for
sanctions against respondent and for attorney fees. There was a lengthy exchange between the magistrate
and counsel involving accusations of failure to comply with rules of court. Respondent interrupted opposing
counsel as he began his opening statement and asked the court to continue this to give defendant time to find
local counsel because she cannot handle the case and cannot deal with it because it is a travesty. She abruptly
left the courtroom after saying she had a severe headache, felt very ill, and begging the court to continue the
case. The hearing continued without her. The juvenile court records show that she never filed a notice of
withdrawal. On August 29, 2005, she replied to a notice of a hearing that had taken place on August 26 by
saying she had withdrawn on March 4, 2004. The August 26 hearing was held on the mother‘s motion for
sanctions against respondent. The hearing resulted in a September 2005 court order of $11,888.50 in
sanctions and calling respondent‘s conduct ―spurious,‖ ―demean[ing], and ―below standards of practice of an
attorney licensed to practice law in this Court.‖ As to the third misrepresentation, in late December 2005,
respondent moved for leave to plead instanter and to vacate the judgment granting sanctions. In the motion,
she made a statement contrary to the representation made in her August 29, 2005 notice, by stating that she had
no notice of the proceeding that resulted in the order of sanction. The juvenile court overruled the motion and
ordered her to pay $7,937.50 more in attorney fees. The appellate court dismissed her appeal for failure to
prosecute. Board found violations of DR 1-102(A)(4), 1-102(A)(5), 2-110(A)(2), 7-101(A)(3) and 7-
102(A)(5). In aggravation, there was a pattern and multiple offenses, no acknowledgment of the wrongful
nature of her misconduct, no attempt to make restitution by satisfying the attorney fees levied against her.
BCGD Proc.Reg. 10(B)(1)(c), (d), (g), and (i). In mitigation she had practice for years without prior
discipline. BCGD Proc.Reg. 10(B)(1). The court adopted the board‘s findings of violations and the
recommended sanction of an indefinite suspension and so ordered.
Rules Violated: DR 1-102(A)(4), 1-102(A)(5), 2-110(A)(2), 7-101(A)(3), 7-102(A)(5)
Aggravation: (c), (d), (g), (i)
Mitigation: (a)
Prior Discipline: NO Procedure/ Process Issues: NO Criminal Conduct: NO
Public Official: NO Sanction: Indefnite Suspension