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

Ellis, Columbus Bar Assn. v.
120 Ohio St.3d 89, 2008-Ohio-5278. Decided 10/16/2008.
Case Summaries- 75
Respondent engaged in misconduct involving similar patterns of deceit, neglect, and non-communication
with regard to 18 criminal defendants, including incarcerated clients. Between 2003-2006, he accepted
funds from these individuals ranging from $750 (Count 10) to $10,000 (Count 16). In nine instances,
he either did not initiate or complete the tasks (Counts 1-3, 6, 8, 11-13, 16). In two of those occasions
he misrepresented that he had filed the paperwork. In all counts there was deceit followed by lack of
satisfactory communication with the client or the client‘s family. In five counts he accepted an initial fee
and had no further contact with the client and/or the client‘s family. (Counts 1, 2, 4, 8, 13). His
communication with eight other clients was so infrequent or so untimely he was forced to concede its
inadequacy. (Counts 3, 5, 6, 7, 9, 11, 12, 17). Compounding this, his repeated refusals to answer verbal
an d written requests for information and case status from the client and/or families. Respondent operated
his office as a ―one-man enterprise‖ and became overwhelmed and ―shut down.‖ Supreme Court of Ohio
adopted the board‘s findings of violations in 14 counts of DR 1-102(A)(6); at least a dozen violations of
DR 6-101(A)(3). DR 7-101(A)(1), DR 9-102(B)(4), and Gov.Bar R. V(4)(G); 13 violations of DR 1-
104(A); two of DR 1-102(A)(4), and three of DR 1-102(A)(5). Aggravating factors were multiple
offenses, pattern of misconduct, selfish motive, vulnerability of and resulting harm to clients, failure to
make restitution to all but two clients as of the hearing date. BCGD Proc.Reg. 10(B)(1)(b), (c), (d), (h),
(i). In mitigation, respondent suffered and continues to suffer from depression. He being treated now and
has signed an OLAP contract. There is no prior discipline. BCGD Proc.Reg.10(B)(2)(a), (g). Supreme
Court of Ohio adopted the Board‘s recommended sanction of for two years with reinstatement conditioned
upon conditioned upon provision of medical evidence that respondent can ethically and competently
practice law; continued maintenance of respondent‘s contract with OLAP; and a two-year probation
period under supervision of a monitor appointed by relator and restitution as specified to be paid
within one year from the date of the suspension with interest at the statutory date from the date of
suspension.
Rules Violated: DR 1-102(A)(4), 1-102(A)(5), 1-102(A)(6), 1-104(A), 6-101(A)(3). 7-101(A)(1), 9-
102(B)(4); Gov.Bar R. V(4)(G)
Aggravation: (b), (c), (d), (h), (i)
Mitigation: (a), (g)
Prior Discipline: NO Procedure/ Process Issues: NO Criminal Conduct: NO
Public Official: NO Sanction: Two-year suspension