13.07.2015 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.

Sabol, Disciplinary Counsel v.118 <strong>Ohio</strong> St.3d 65, 2008-<strong>Ohio</strong>-1594. Decided 4/9/2008.Case Summaries- 287Respondent missed the deadline for refiling a client‘s personal injury lawsuit and failed to inform theclient he did not have pr<strong>of</strong>essional liability insurance. In July 1999, he agreed to file a lawsuit for a maninjured in a motorcycle accident. He filed the action in July 2001, but the case proceeded slowly, inpart because <strong>of</strong> respondent‘s failure to respond to defendant‘s discovery requests and the fact that thedefendant‘s insurance company had filed bankruptcy. In August 2003, he and the client agreed tovoluntarily dismiss the case and refile it after the after the bankruptcy stay was lifted and some <strong>of</strong> theclient‘s medical problems were resolved. He notified opposing counsel in August 2003, but did not filea notice <strong>of</strong> dismissal until February 2004. He realized he had only one year to refile, but he incorrectlynotated the deadline as February 2, 2006. He discovered his error in January 2006. He immediatelytold the client to consult another lawyer about the potential malpractice claim. He had no insurance anddid not inform the client he lacked coverage. The clients sued and they settled for $12,500 whichrespondent has paid in full. Panel and board found violations <strong>of</strong> DR 1-102(A)(5) and 6-101(A)(3) andrecommended a six-month suspension stayed. In mitigation, respondent cooperated and maderestitution. BCGD Proc.Reg. 10(B)(2)(c) and (d). In aggravation, respondent received a publicreprimand for dismissing personal injury claims <strong>of</strong> a woman and her daughter without their consent inAllen Cty. Bar v. Sabol (1997), 79 <strong>Ohio</strong> St. 3d 387. The court adopted the findings <strong>of</strong> violations <strong>of</strong> DR1-102(A)(5) and 6-101(A)(3) but disagreed with the recommended sanction because his history <strong>of</strong>unacceptable conduct and his impermissible action in this case warranted a stricter sanction than a fullystayed suspension. The court ordered a suspension for six months. Citations to Rose (2007) and Gerren(2006).Rules Violated: DR 1-102(A)(5), 6-101(A)(3)Aggravation: (a)Mitigation: (c), (d)Prior Discipline: YES Procedure/ Process Issues: NO Criminal Conduct: NOPublic Official: NO Sanction: Six-month suspension

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

Saved successfully!

Ooh no, something went wrong!