04.09.2014 Views

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

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

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

SHOW MORE
SHOW LESS

You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles

YUMPU automatically turns print PDFs into web optimized ePapers that Google loves.

DeLoach, Akron Bar Assn. v.<br />

130 <strong>Ohio</strong> St.3d 153, 2011-<strong>Ohio</strong>-4201. Decided 8/31/2011.<br />

Case Summaries- 63<br />

Respondent engaged in dishonest conduct during a <strong>disciplinary</strong> investigation. Respondent was originally<br />

charged in a two-count complaint, but the panel, based on the parties‘ stipulations, dismissed Count 1. In<br />

Count 2, respondent failed to file the proper indigency information for her client‘s criminal appeal, and<br />

thus the appeal was dismissed. It was later taken up by another lawyer and reopened. During an<br />

investigation into this misconduct, the investigator requested letters sent to her client about the indigency<br />

information. Respondent send MS Word files, purportedly <strong>of</strong> the letters she sent to her client, to the<br />

investigator that had been created at a public library the same day they were sent. Respondent first stated<br />

she could only find papers copies <strong>of</strong> the letters, and so she retyped them, but later admitted that she had<br />

lost the originals and simply retyped the letters from memory. She later found the original letters and<br />

sent them to relator. The panel and board found a violation <strong>of</strong> Pr<strong>of</strong>.Cond.R. 8.4(c) (dishonesty, fraud,<br />

deceit, or misrepresentation). The <strong>Court</strong> adopted these findings. In aggravation, respondent had<br />

engaged in deceptive practices during a <strong>disciplinary</strong> investigation. BCGD Proc.Reg. 10(B)(1)(f). In<br />

mitigation, there was no prior <strong>disciplinary</strong> record. BCGD Proc.Reg. 10(B)(2)(a). The panel and<br />

board recommended a six-month suspension, stayed with 2 years <strong>of</strong> monitored probation. Citing Potter<br />

(2010), Rohrer (2009), Carroll (2005), and Ricketts (2010), the <strong>Court</strong> noted that a violation <strong>of</strong><br />

Pr<strong>of</strong>.Cond.R. 8.4(c) usually requires actual time <strong>of</strong>f. However, the <strong>Court</strong> found that respondent had<br />

no prior discipline, showed remorse for her actions, engaged in a single incident <strong>of</strong> misconduct with no<br />

intent for financial gain, and did not actually harm anyone. The <strong>Court</strong> thus adopted the recommended<br />

sanction.<br />

Rules Violated: Pr<strong>of</strong>.Cond.R. 8.4(c)<br />

Aggravation: (f)<br />

Mitigation: (a)<br />

Prior Discipline: NO Procedure/ Process Issues: NO Criminal Conduct: NO<br />

Public Official: NO Sanction: Six-month suspension, stayed

Hooray! Your file is uploaded and ready to be published.

Saved successfully!

Ooh no, something went wrong!