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

Jaffe, Cleveland Metro Bar Assn. v.121 Ohio St.3d 260, 2009-Ohio-763. Decided 2/26/2009.Case Summaries- 141Respondent failed to cooperate in a disciplinary investigation. On February 16, 2007, relator notifiedrespondent that a grievance had been filed against him, that he had a duty to cooperate, and that he shouldrespond within 14 days. On March 29, 2007, respondent e-mailed relator, acknowledging receipt ofrelator‘s letter and indicating he hoped to respond within three weeks. Approximately two weeks later, hee-mailed the investigator falsely indicating he had prepared and placed a response in the mail. Thefollowing month, the investigator sent respondent a letter by both e-mail and certified mail stating noresponse had been received and demanding a response within 10 days. The certified mail was returnedmarked ―refused.‖ Subsequent attempts to reach respondent by telephone and e-mail were unsuccessful.On February 26, 2008, relator filed a complaint charging respondent with failure to cooperate.Respondent filed an answer denying failure to cooperate. A notice of deposition was served upon him,but he left a voicemail on the morning of the deposition advising relator‘s counsel that he did notbelieve his attendance was required because he had delivered the client‘s file to relator‘s counsel. Heattended a subsequently scheduled deposition and admitted the allegations in the complaint. On June 11,2008, the parties filed an application for discipline by consent which was not accepted because itwas untimely filed pursuant to BCGD Proc.Reg. 11(B). The matter was submitted to a panel of theboard upon the parties‘ stipulations of facts, exhibits, aggravating and mitigating factors, and agreed-uponsanction of a six- month suspension. The board accepted the panel‘s finding that respondent violatedGov.Bar R. V(4)(G). In aggravation, respondent had a prior disciplinary violation resulting in a two-yearsuspension with the second year stayed on conditions in 2004. Disciplinary Counsel v. Jaffe, 102 OhioSt.3d 273, 2004-Ohio-2685. In mitigation, there was a lack of a dishonest or selfish motive, the absenceof harm to a client, the absence of a pattern of misconduct, respondent‘s eventual cooperation in thedisciplinary process, and his admission of the wrongful nature of his conduct. Also, noted were hisclosing of his law office and plans to cease practicing law. The board adopted the panel‘srecommendation of a six-month suspension from the practice of law. The Supreme Court agreed with thefinding of a violation of Gov.Bar R. V(4)(G) and the recommended sanction of a six month suspensionand so ordered.Rules Violated: Gov.Bar R. V(4)(G)Aggravation: (a)Mitigation: (b), (d)Prior Discipline: NO Procedure/ Process Issues: NO Criminal Conduct: NOPublic Official: NO Sanction: Six-month suspension