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

Ellison, Dayton Bar Assn. v.
118 Ohio St.3d 128, 2008-Ohio-1808. Decided 4/23/2008.
Case Summaries- 76
Respondent stipulated to the facts, misconduct, and sanction imposed on two counts charged by the
relator. As to Count I, respondent was hired in July 1997 by a client (Parker) to represent him in a
divorce. The divorce was obtained in December of 1997, but a Qualified Domestic Relations Order
(QDRO) was never finalized. The QDRO was to give Parker a one-half interest in his ex-wife‘s 401K
plan. Respondent had to obtain the 401(k) administrator‘s approval before filing the QDRO in court.
The administrator rejected a proposed QDRO and respondent had to revise it, but the administrator still
resisted and advised respondent in September 2000 that a restraining order precluded further negation.
Respondent persuaded the administrator to resume negotiations but in November 2001 the client‘s exwife
filed for bankruptcy which complicated things further. At some point, respondent and opposing
counsel notified the court that the 401(k) had been rolled into an IRA and that they would file a QDRO
soon. Respondent never followed through. Parker only got his interest in the 401K plan after hiring
another lawyer. As to Count II, respondent was hired in July 2001 by a woman (Grismer) to sue her
employer for employment discrimination. Respondent failed to oppose a motion for summary judgment
in federal court. The court granted the summary judgment motion of the employer as unopposed.
Respondent then misled her client as to this decision and failed to save her client‘s claim. When the
client called to check on the status of her claim, respondent replied she ―didn‘t know anything.‖ Even
though the client checked back periodically, respondent did not tell her of the adverse judgment
until some six month s after the decision when the client came to her office and confronted her.
Respondent explained to the hearing panel that she had personal problems at the time, including the
end of her marriage and did not want to deal with having lost the client‘s case. She also testified that she
did not open the electronic notification of the court‘s ruling immediately and did not realize for some
time the court granted the summary judgment as unopposed. The board found violations of DR 6-
101(A)(3) for Count I and violations of DR 1-102(A)(4), 1-102(A)(6), and 6-101(A)(3) for Count II.
Normally a violation of DR 1-102(A)(4) requires and actual suspension from the practice of law, but here
there were enough mitigating factors to warrant a stayed suspension. The mitigating factors include
respondent‘s long standing positive reputation in her community, representation of clients who can ill
afford an attorney, and her complete cooperation in the disciplinary process. Respondent does have a
public reprimand for neglect on her record, but that was from over 20 years ago. The board
recommended a six month stayed suspension. The Supreme Court suspended respondent for one year,
stayed on the condition that the respondent serve one year probation pursuant to Gov.Bar R. V(9), during
which she will cooperate with an attorney assigned to monitor the responsible management of her office
and attend a continuing legal education course on law office management, which is the suspension the
parties stipulated. One justice dissented in favor of a six-month stayed suspension.
Rules Violated: DR 1-102(A)(4), 1-102(A)(6), 6-101(A)(3)
Aggravation: (a)
Mitigation: (d), (e)
Prior Discipline: YES Procedure/ Process Issues: NO Criminal Conduct: NO
Public Official: NO Sanction: One-year suspension, stayed