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

Lape, Disciplinary Counsel v.130 Ohio St.3d 273, 2011-Ohio-5757. Decided 11/10/2011.Case Summaries- 168Respondent neglected a client‘s matter, failed to safe guard the client‘s property, and failed to cooperatein the ensuing disciplinary investigation. Respondent was hired to represent two clients in abankruptcy matter. The clients‘ debt was discharged, but respondent failed to return the clients‘ phonecalls about post discharge questions. Respondent also did not return the clients‘ papers to themupon request. Upon inquiry by relator, respondent did not initially respond to relator‘s letters. Sheeventually appeared at a deposition and said she had lost her clients‘ file. She agreed to help them,but never did. Respondent failed to file a timely answer and did no respond until she was served with amotion for default. This conduct violated Prof.Cond.R. 1.3 (reasonable diligence), 1.15 (safekeepingand delivery of client‘s property), 1.16(d) (protecting clients during withdraw), 8.1(b) (failing torespond in a disciplinary investigation), and Gov.Bar R. V(4)(G) (failure to cooperate). The Courtadopted these findings. The parties stipulated that respondent had no prior discipline as a mitigatingfactor, however, she did have a previous attorney registration suspension, and thus her prior discipline isan aggravating factor. BCGD Proc.Reg. 10(B)(1)(a). The parties stipulated to, and the boardrecommended a six-month suspension, stayed on the condition of no further misconduct and 6 CLEhours in law office management. Citing Zaffiro (2010) and Simon (2011), the Court adopted therecommended sanction.Rules Violated: Prof.Cond.R. 1.3, 1.15, 1.16(d), 8.1(b), Gov.Bar R. V(4)(G)Aggravation: (d), (e), (h)Mitigation: (a), (g)Prior Discipline: NO Procedure/ Process Issues: YES Criminal Conduct: NOPublic Official: NO Sanction: Six-month suspension, stayed