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

Wittbrod, Akron Bar Assn. v.130 Ohio St.3d 72, 2011-Ohio-4706. Decided 9/21/2011.Case Summaries- 359Respondent neglected a legal matter entrusted to him, failed to notify his clients that he lackedprofessional liability insurance, failed to provide competent representation, and failed to cooperate in thedisciplinary investigation. Respondent was previously suspended for six-months, stayed, and receivedan attorney registration suspension in 2009. Respondent did not answer the complaint, so a mastercommissioner made findings of fact, conclusions of law and recommended a six-month suspensionto be served concurrently with the previous suspension. In Count One, respondent kept money from asettlement to pay the client‘s medical bills, but did not pay them. Respondent closed his officewithout leaving a forwarding address and did not advise his client that he lacked professional liabilityinsurance. This conduct violated DR 1-104(A) and (B)/ Prof.Cond.R. 1.4(c) (lack of liabilityinsurance), DR 6-101(A)(3)/ Prof.Cond.R. 1.3 (neglect of a legal matter), Prof.Cond.R. 8.1(b) andGov.Bar R. V(4)(G) (failure to cooperate in a disciplinary investigation). The board dismissed charges ofDR 9-102(A) and (B) and Prof.Cond.R. 1.15. In Count Two, respondent represented a couple in abankruptcy proceeding. When the couple‘s mortgage company refunded $5000 in payments the clientshad made to respondent, respondent did not return that money. He ceased communication and as aresult, the couple had to sell their home at a loss to avoid foreclosure. Respondent did not advise hisclients that he lacked liability insurance. This conduct violated DR 1-104(A) and (B)/ Prof.Cond.R.1.4(c), DR 6-101(A)(1) (failure to provide competent representation), 6-101(A)(3)/ Prof.Cond.R. 1.3,Prof.Cond.R. 8.1(b) and Gov.Bar R. V(4)(G). The board dismissed charges of DR 9-102(A) and (B) andProf.Cond.R. 1.15. In Count Three, respondent failed to reaffirm a bankruptcy client‘s debt on anauto lease, despite the client‘s wishes, and thus ruined her cosigner‘s credit and force the car to berepossessed. He did not advise the client that he lacked liability insurance. This conduct violatedProf.Cond.R. 1.1 (competent representation), 1.3, 1.4(c), 8.1(b), and Gov.Bar R. V(4)(G). The Courtagreed with the above findings. In aggravation, respondent had a prior disciplinary record, had a stayedsuspension revoked, engaged in a pattern of misconduct involving multiple offenses, failed to cooperatein the disciplinary process, failed to make restitution and harmed vulnerable clients. BCGD Proc.Reg.10(B)(1)(a), (c), (d), (e), (h), (i). There were no factors in mitigation. Relator sought and the boardrecommended an indefinite suspension, citing respondent‘s previous discipline and his apparentindifference towards it. Citing Hoff (2010), Davis (2009), and Mathewson (2007), the Court adopted theboard‘s recommended sanction.Rules Violated: Prof.Cond.R. 1.3, 1.4(c), 8.1(b); DR 1-104(A), 1-104(B), 6-101(A)(1), 6-101(A)(3);Gov.Bar R. V(4)(G)Aggravation: (a), (c), (d), (e), (h), (i)Mitigation: NONEPrior Discipline: YES Procedure/ Process Issues: NO Criminal Conduct: NOPublic Official: NO Sanction: Indefinite Suspension