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

Siehl, Disciplinary Counsel v.123 Ohio St.3d 480, 2009-Ohio-5936. Decided 11/18/2009.Case Summaries- 308Respondent deserted an incarcerated client seeking post-conviction relief and failed to respond to thedisciplinary investigation. Upon granting relator‘s motion for default, a master commissioner madefindings, conclusions, and a recommendation all of which the Board adopted. As to Count I, in January2008, respondent was appointed to represent an incarcerated client in post-conviction proceedings, butwhen the client wrote to respondent in January and February asking to discuss the case, respondent filedto respond and never filed anything on the client‘s behalf. Board found violations of Prof.Cond.R.1.3 and 1.4(a)(3) and (4) for doing nothing for the client and a violation of Prof.Cond.R. 8.4(d) and(h) by failing to honor his court appointment. As to Count II, during the disciplinary investigationrespondent ignored virtually all notice of that proceeding. He replied once in mid-August 2008 bypromising to ―take care of it‖ when relator‘s investigator personally delivered notice of the grievance.Board found a violation of Prof.Cond.R. 8.1(b) and 8.4(d) and (h). In mitigation, there was no priordiscipline. BCGD Proc.Reg. 10(B)(2)(a). The Board found that this one mitigating factor did not warranta departure from Boylan (1999) in which an indefinite suspension was ordered for similar misconduct ofneglect and failure to cooperate by a court appointed attorney. The Supreme Court of Ohio agreed withthe findings, conclusions, and recommended sanction and so ordered an indefinite suspension.Rules Violated: Prof.Cond.R. 1.3, 1.4(a)(3), 1.4(a)(4), 8.1(b), 8.4(d), 8.4(h)Aggravation: NONEMitigation: (a)Prior Discipline: NO Procedure/ Process Issues: NO Criminal Conduct: NOPublic Official: NO Sanction: Indefinite Suspension