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

More documents

Recommendations

Info

Case Summaries- 320O‘Donnell, joined by Justices Pfeifer and Stewart (for McGee Brown), believed the precedent requiredthe Court to follow the board‘s recommended sanction.Rules Violated: Prof.Cond.R. 1.5(b), 1.8(a), 1.15(a), 1.15(c), 1.16(e), 8.4(c), 8.4(h)Aggravation: (b), (c), (d), (f), (g), (h), (i) Mitigation: (a), (e)Prior Discipline: NO Procedure/ Process Issues: YES Criminal Conduct: NOPublic Official: NO Sanction: Indefinite Suspension
Stafford, Disciplinary Counsel v.128 Ohio St.3d 446, 2011-Ohio-1484. Decided 4/5/2011.Case Summaries- 321Respondent unlawfully obstructed the discovery process before a domestic relations court and failed to fulfillhis duty of candor toward both a trial and appellate court. Respondent was publicly reprimanded in 2000.Respondent was originally charged in a five-count complaint, but the panel and board recommendeddismissal of Counts III, IV, and V in their entirety, as well several charges in Counts I and II. In Count I,respondent represented the wife in an 18-month divorce action. The husband was represented by a series offour attorneys. Respondent failed to respond to discovery requests propounded by the first attorney and usedthe line of future attorneys to continue to avoid responding to the discovery requests. Upon questioning byrelator, respondent was uncooperative in establishing what really happened during the divorce action, instead―erect[ing] a smokescreen‖ to hide his lack of compliance. This conduct was found to have violated DR 1-102(A)(5) and 1-102(A)(6), and Prof.Cond.R. 3.4(a), 3.4(c), 8.4(d), and 8.4(h). The boardrecommended dismissal of Prof.Cond.R. 4.1, 8.4(c), and 3.3(a)(1) on the merits, and Prof.Cond.R.3.4(d) because the conduct giving rise to this violation occurred before the effective date for the rule. In CountII, respondent was hired to pursue a negligence action against the client‘s former attorney. The client soughtdamages that included attorney‘s fees. At a deposition, the opposing side sought to question the client aboutexpenses and attorney‘s fees the client had incurred. Respondent objected to this, asserting a blanketprivilege, which was rejected by the presiding judge. Respondent later received both a second and thirdrequest for these fee-related documents, but refused to disclose them both times under attorney-clientprivilege. Opposing counsel filed a motion to compel these responses, and respondent responded with amotion for a protective order. The motion for a protective order was denied by the trial judge andaffirmed on appeal. Opposing counsel then requested the documents a fourth time; respondent did respondwith some documents, but no attorney-fee bills. After over two years of this back-and-forth, respondentdisclosed that no fee bills were ever sent to the client. Respondent‘s law firm then sent copies of the billsprepared and sent after this disclosure to the judge, who disseminated them to opposing counsel. Theboard found respondent violated DR 1-102(A)(5) and 1-102(A)(6) for misleading opposing counsel andthe court by claiming privilege on fee-bills that did not actually exist. As to both counts, respondentobjected that the board lacked clear and convincing evidence to find the violations; relator also objected,arguing that the board had clear and convincing evidence to find the violations they dismissed, and that hemade a ―good faith‖ legal argument as to Count II. The Court deferred to the board‘s assessment of thetruth and weight of the evidence, noting the thoroughness of the 22-day hearing, the review of the evidenceby both the panel and the board, and the persistence and pattern of respondent‘s deceptive practices duringthe discovery processes. The Court found that it was clear from the record that respondent acted inanything but good faith, and showed a pattern of indifference to the discovery process. The Courtoverruled both sides‘ objections and adopted the board‘s findings of fact and conclusions of law in theirentirety. In aggravation, the board found that respondent had a prior disciplinary record which had similarityto the currently alleged violations, engaged in a pattern of misconduct involving multiple offenses, displayed adishonest or selfish motive, and was periodically disrespectful to assistant disciplinary counsel throughout the21 days of hearings on this matter. BCGD Proc.Reg. 10(B)(1)(a), (b), (c), and (d). In mitigation, the boardnoted that respondent behaved ―appropriately‖ over the course of 22 days of intense pressure during thehearings, but could not say he was cooperative based on his disrespectful attitude to a fellow officer of thecourt during the hearing. The board, relying on Wallace (1998), Marsick (1998), and Finneran (1997)recommended an 18-month suspension with 12 months stayed and monitoring. Both parties objected;relator asked for an 18- month suspension, no stay and respondent asked that the charges be dismissed.In an opinion written by Justice Lanzinger, the Court overruled both parties objections, but, upon itsindependent review of the evidence, concluded that the appropriate sanction for respondent was an 18-monthsuspension with 6 months stayed on the condition that respondent engage in no further misconduct.Rules Violated: Prof.Cond.R. 3.4(a), 3.4(c), 8.4(d), 8.4(h); DR 1-102(A)(5), 1-102(A)(6)Aggravation: (a), (b), (c), (d)Mitigation: NONEPrior Discipline: YES Procedure/ Process Issues: YES Criminal Conduct: NOPublic Official: NO Sanction: Eighteen-month suspension, six months stayed
Page 1:
The Supreme Court of OhioBoard of C
Page 5 and 6:
Drain, Cuyahoga Cty. Bar Assn. v.12
Page 7 and 8:
Horton, Disciplinary Counsel v.124
Page 9 and 10:
Markovich, Akron Bar Assn. v.117 Oh
Page 11 and 12:
Table of Cases- 9Ramos, Cleveland B
Page 13 and 14:
Table of Cases- 11Stuard, Becker, B
Page 15 and 16:
Case SummariesAllerding, Columbus B
Page 17 and 18:
Case Summaries- 15Archer, Northwest
Page 19 and 20:
Case Summaries- 17intermittently ov
Page 21 and 22:
Bartels, Allen Cty. Bar Assn. v.124
Page 23 and 24:
Blair, Disciplinary Counsel v.128 O
Page 25 and 26:
Case Summaries- 23Bowling, Discipli
Page 27 and 28:
Broschak, Disciplinary Counsel v.11
Page 29 and 30:
Brown, Dayton Bar Assn. v.124 Ohio
Page 31 and 32:
Brown, Allen Cty. Bar Assn. v.124 O
Page 33 and 34:
Brueggeman, Disciplinary Counsel v.
Page 35 and 36:
Bunstine, Disciplinary Counsel v.12
Page 37 and 38:
Bursey, Disciplinary Counsel v.124
Page 39 and 40:
Butler, Disciplinary Counsel v.128
Page 41 and 42:
Campbell, Disciplinary Counsel v.12
Page 43 and 44:
Cantrell, Disciplinary Counsel v.12
Page 45 and 46:
Cantrell, Disciplinary Counsel v.13
Page 47 and 48:
Case Summaries- 45abuse impede his
Page 49 and 50:
Case Summaries- 47respondent‘s de
Page 51 and 52:
Case Summaries- 49with a client if
Page 53 and 54:
Case Summaries- 51not DR 1-102(A)(5
Page 55 and 56:
Clovis, Columbus Bar Assn. v.125 Oh
Page 57 and 58:
Corrigan, Geauga Cty. Bar Assn. v.1
Page 59 and 60:
Cunningham, Butler Cty. Bar Assn. v
Page 61 and 62:
Davis, Disciplinary Counsel v.121 O
Page 63 and 64:
Dawson, Cleveland Metropolitan Bar
Page 65 and 66:
DeLoach, Akron Bar Assn. v.130 Ohio
Page 67 and 68:
Detweiler, Disciplinary Counsel v.1
Page 69 and 70:
DiCato, Akron Bar Assn. v.130 Ohio
Page 71 and 72:
DiMartino, Mahoning Cty. Bar Assn.
Page 73 and 74:
Doellman, Disciplinary Counsel v.12
Page 75 and 76:
Drain, Cuyahoga Cty. Bar Assn. v.12
Page 77 and 78:
Ellis, Columbus Bar Assn. v.120 Ohi
Page 79 and 80:
Emerson, Cincinnati Bar Assn. v.122
Page 81 and 82:
Farah, Toledo Bar Assn. v.125 Ohio
Page 83 and 84:
Farrell, Cincinnati Bar Assn. v.129
Page 85 and 86:
Fink, Akron Bar Assn. v.131 Ohio St
Page 87 and 88:
Folwell, Disciplinary Counsel v.129
Page 89 and 90:
Freedman, Akron Bar Assn. v.128 Ohi
Page 91 and 92:
Freeman, Disciplinary Counsel v.126
Page 93 and 94:
Freeman, Disciplinary Counsel v.119
Page 95 and 96:
Frost, Disciplinary Counsel v.122 O
Page 97 and 98:
Case Summaries- 95his goal of gaini
Page 99 and 100:
Gibson, Akron Bar Assn. v.128 Ohio
Page 101 and 102:
Glaeser, Cuyahoga Cty. Bar Assn. v.
Page 103 and 104:
Goldblatt, Disciplinary Counsel v.1
Page 105 and 106:
Gottehrer, Cleveland Metro. Bar Ass
Page 107 and 108:
Case Summaries- 105disgorgement of
Page 109 and 110:
Grote, Cincinnati Bar Assn. v.127 O
Page 111 and 112:
Hackett, Cincinnati Bar Assn. v.129
Page 113 and 114:
Case Summaries- 111presented eviden
Page 115 and 116:
Hanni, Mahoning Cty. Bar Assn. v.12
Page 117 and 118:
Hauck, Cincinnati Bar Assn. v.129 O
Page 119 and 120:
Heiland, Disciplinary Counsel v.116
Page 121 and 122:
Heisler, Cincinnati Bar Assn. v.119
Page 123 and 124:
Henry, Disciplinary Counsel v.127 O
Page 125 and 126:
Hickman, Toledo Bar Assn. v.119 Ohi
Page 127 and 128:
Hildebrand, Cleveland Metro. Bar As
Page 129 and 130:
Holda, Akron Bar Assn. v.125 Ohio S
Page 131 and 132:
Horan, Disciplinary Counsel v.123 O
Page 133 and 134:
Hoskins, Disciplinary Counsel v.119
Page 135 and 136:
Howard, Disciplinary Counsel v.123
Page 137 and 138:
Hunter, Columbus Bar Assn. v.130 Oh
Page 139 and 140:
Jackel, Ohio State Bar Assn. v.118
Page 141 and 142:
Jackson, Disciplinary Counsel v.127
Page 143 and 144:
Jaffe, Cleveland Metro Bar Assn. v.
Page 145 and 146:
Johnson, Toledo Bar Assn. v.121 Ohi
Page 147 and 148:
Johnson, Cuyahoga Cty. Bar Assn. v.
Page 149 and 150:
Johnston, Disciplinary Counsel v.12
Page 151 and 152:
Jones, Mahoning Cty. Bar Assn. v.12
Page 153 and 154:
Kaplan, Cleveland Metro. Bar Assn.
Page 155 and 156:
Kealy, Cleveland Metro. Bar Assn. v
Page 157 and 158:
Kellogg-Martin, Disciplinary Counse
Page 159 and 160:
Kelly, Disciplinary Counsel. v.121
Page 161 and 162:
Case Summaries- 159other assets in
Page 163 and 164:
Case Summaries- 161none of the mone
Page 165 and 166:
Case Summaries- 163Although the uns
Page 167 and 168:
Kubyn, Lake Cty. Bar Assn. v.121 Oh
Page 169 and 170:
Landis, Disciplinary Counsel v.124
Page 171 and 172:
Lapine, Disciplinary Counsel v.128
Page 173 and 174:
Larkin, Columbus Bar Assn. v.128 Oh
Page 175 and 176:
Case Summaries- 173Board‘s findin
Page 177 and 178:
Lawson, Cincinnati Bar Assn. v.119
Page 179 and 180:
Lawson, Cincinnati Bar Assn. v.130
Page 181 and 182:
Lentes, Disciplinary Counsel v.120
Page 183 and 184:
Lewis, Medina Cty. Bar Assn. v.121
Page 185 and 186:
Case Summaries- 183and blame the wo
Page 187 and 188:
Longino, Disciplinary Counsel v.128
Page 189 and 190:
Lowden, Toledo Bar Assn. v.117 Ohio
Page 191 and 192:
Case Summaries- 1898.4(h) by his ac
Page 193 and 194:
Mamich, Disciplinary Counsel v.125
Page 195 and 196:
Manning, Disciplinary Counsel v.119
Page 197 and 198:
Marosan, Stark Cty. Bar Assn. v.119
Page 199 and 200:
Martin, Toledo Bar Assn. v.131 Ohio
Page 201 and 202:
Mason, Toledo Bar Assn. v.118 Ohio
Page 203 and 204:
McAuliffe, Disciplinary Counsel v.1
Page 205 and 206:
McCord, Disciplinary Counsel v.121
Page 207 and 208:
McFaul, Cleveland Metro. Bar Assn.
Page 209 and 210:
Case Summaries- 207withdrawal. Resp
Page 211 and 212:
Case Summaries- 209that he is compe
Page 213 and 214:
Meade, Disciplinary Counsel v.127 O
Page 215 and 216:
Miller, Disciplinary Counsel v.126
Page 217 and 218:
Minamyer, Butler Cty. Bar Assn. v.1
Page 219 and 220:
Case Summaries- 217represent his cl
Page 221 and 222:
Case Summaries- 219became effective
Page 223 and 224:
Mitchell, Disciplinary Counsel v.12
Page 225 and 226:
Mullaney, Brooking, and Moeves, Cin
Page 227 and 228:
Murraine, Disciplinary Counsel v.13
Page 229 and 230:
Nance, Cleveland Metropolitan Bar A
Page 231 and 232:
Newcomer, Disciplinary Counsel v.11
Page 233 and 234:
Newman, Cincinnati Bar Assn. v.124
Page 235 and 236:
Niermeyer, Disciplinary Counsel v.1
Page 237 and 238:
Nittskoff, Disciplinary Counsel. v.
Page 239 and 240:
Case Summaries- 237Master Commissio
Page 241 and 242:
Ohlin, Disciplinary Counsel v.126 O
Page 243 and 244:
O’Malley, Disciplinary Counsel v.
Page 245 and 246:
Case Summaries- 243conditions that
Page 247 and 248:
Patterson, Geauga Cty. Bar Assn. v.
Page 249 and 250:
Peskin, Ohio State Bar Assn. v.125
Page 251 and 252:
Case Summaries- 249met by imposing
Page 253 and 254:
Plough, Disciplinary Counsel v.126
Page 255 and 256:
Podor, Cleveland Metro. Bar Assn. v
Page 257 and 258:
Portman, Butler Cty. Bar Assn. v.12
Page 259 and 260:
Potter, Disciplinary Counsel v.126
Page 261 and 262:
Pullins, Disciplinary Counsel v.127
Page 263 and 264:
Case Summaries- 261disqualification
Page 265 and 266:
Randall, Dayton Bar Assn. v.118 Ohi
Page 267 and 268:
Case Summaries- 265history, no dish
Page 269 and 270:
Raso, Disciplinary Counsel v.129 Oh
Page 271 and 272: Resnick, Ohio State Bar Assn. v.128
Page 273 and 274: Ricketts, Disciplinary Counsel v.12
Page 275 and 276: Ridenbaugh, Disciplinary Counsel v.
Page 277 and 278: Ritson, Toledo Bar Assn. v.127 Ohio
Page 279 and 280: Roberts, Disciplinary Counsel v.117
Page 281 and 282: Robinson, Disciplinary Counsel v.12
Page 283 and 284: Rohrer, Disciplinary Counsel v.124
Page 285 and 286: Rozanc, Lake Cty. Bar Assn. v.123 O
Page 287 and 288: Rust, Toledo Bar Assn. v.124 Ohio S
Page 289 and 290: Sabol, Disciplinary Counsel v.118 O
Page 291 and 292: Case Summaries- 289condition of the
Page 293 and 294: Sanz, Cincinnati Bar Assn. v.128 Oh
Page 295 and 296: Saunders, Greene Cty. Bar Assn. v.1
Page 297 and 298: Sayler, Cleveland Metro. Bar Assn.
Page 299 and 300: Case Summaries- 2971.5(a), 1.16(d),
Page 301 and 302: Schram, Dayton Bar Assn. v.122 Ohio
Page 303 and 304: Scott, Toledo Bar Assn. v.129 Ohio
Page 305 and 306: Shaw, Disciplinary Counsel v.126 Oh
Page 307 and 308: Shea, Columbus Bar Assn. v.117 Ohio
Page 309 and 310: Shuler, Disciplinary Counsel v.129
Page 311 and 312: Siewert, Disciplinary Counsel. v.13
Page 313 and 314: Simon, Disciplinary Counsel v.128 O
Page 315 and 316: Smith, Disciplinary Counsel v.124 O
Page 317 and 318: Smith, Disciplinary Counsel v.128 O
Page 319 and 320: Smithern, Akron Bar Assn. v.125 Ohi
Page 321: Squire, Disciplinary Counsel v.130
Page 325 and 326: Stoll, Erie-Huron Grievance Commt.
Page 327 and 328: Stuard, Becker, and Bailey, Discipl
Page 329 and 330: Taylor, Disciplinary Counsel v.120
Page 331 and 332: Theisler, Mahoning Cty. Bar Assn. v
Page 333 and 334: Thomas, Cleveland Metro. Bar Assn.
Page 335 and 336: Case Summaries- 333court entered an
Page 337 and 338: Trainor, Cincinnati Bar Assn. v.129
Page 339 and 340: Troxell, Columbus Bar Assn. v.129 O
Page 341 and 342: Troy, Lake Cty. Bar Assn. v.130 Ohi
Page 343 and 344: Case Summaries- 341professionals in
Page 345 and 346: Vivyan, Disciplinary Counsel v.125
Page 347 and 348: Case Summaries- 345offenses, there
Page 349 and 350: Walker, Disciplinary Counsel v.119
Page 351 and 352: Weisberg, Toledo Bar Assn. v.124 Oh
Page 353 and 354: Case Summaries- 351Chandlers to dis
Page 355 and 356: Williams, Disciplinary Counsel v.13
Page 357 and 358: Williamson, Butler Cty. Bar Assn. v
Page 359 and 360: Wineman, Disciplinary Counsel v.121
Page 361 and 362: Wittbrod, Akron Bar Assn. v.130 Ohi
Page 363 and 364: Yeager, Disciplinary Counsel v.123
Page 365 and 366: Zaffiro, Cleveland Metro. Bar Assn.
Page 367 and 368: Zigan, Disciplinary Counsel v.118 O
Page 369 and 370: Bennett (2/4/2010) (unlawfullystruc
Page 371 and 372: Clovis (5/5/2010) (as required by G
Page 373 and 374:
on inactive status and while under
Page 375 and 376:
suspension, and remanded to board t
Page 377 and 378:
violations for attempt to dismiss a
Page 379 and 380:
Wineman (5/6/2009)Wolanin (4/1/2009
Page 381 and 382:
Willette (3/20/2008)DR 2-103(C) (re
Page 383 and 384:
Patterson (12/2/2009)Ryan (8/27/200
Page 385 and 386:
DR 7-102(A)(5) (knowingly making fa
Page 387 and 388:
DR 9-102(B)(4) (failure to promptly
Page 389 and 390:
Dearfield (10/19/2011)DeLoach (8/31
Page 391 and 392:
McNerney (5/28/2009)(term suspensio
Page 393 and 394:
Hoppel (6/8/2011)Hunter (11/15/2011
Page 395 and 396:
Rule 1.5(a) (charging or collecting
Page 397 and 398:
Gottehrer (3/17/2010)Gresley (12/22
Page 399 and 400:
Marshall (2/12/2009)Martin (12/15/2
Page 401 and 402:
Meade (12/22/2010)Medley (1/27/2011
show all

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

You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles

Delete template?

Save as template?