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

More documents

Recommendations

Info

Catanzarite, Akron Bar Assn. v.119 Ohio St.3d 313, 2008-Ohio-4063. Decided 8/14/2008.Case Summaries- 44Respondent tried to collect excessive legal fees from two prospective clients, sued them for an amountthat he knew he had not earned, and then attempted to bully and threaten his way out of the disciplinaryprocess. On January 13, 2006 respondent met with two prospective clients for one and a half to two hoursto discuss a possible legal matter involving their third partner in a business partnership. By telephone,prior to the meeting he advised he would not charge for consultation, but if hired he would need $1,000retainer and would charge fees as necessary. He did not specify an hourly rate. At the meeting hementioned the $1,000 retainer and that he would cap his fees at $5,000. The prospective clients explainedthat they would have to think about it after they met with another attorney the following week. In theinitial meeting, respondent suggested that the two clients try and bring their third partner back as a teamplayer. Respondent called and asked if progress had been made with the partner and he inquired aboutthe $1000 retainer. The client said he would send the retainer if they decided to hire him. The client toldrespondent he had tried to talk with the third partner before the meeting and tried again after the meeting,but the third partner would not meet with him. Respondent sent a fax after this phone call to theprospective clients that read ―You have already begun implementation of our plan regarding your formerpartner. We have agreed to my legal fee of $5,000, payable with $1,000 immediately and $1,000 on the15th day of February, March, April, and May of 2006…‖ Respondent called a few more times offeringfirst to charge a fee of $1,000 and them of only $300. The two partners did not accept. They laterlearned that respondent filed a lawsuit against their company for breach of contract, claiming theyagreed to pay $1000 retainer and $5.000 in fees. Ultimately the prospective clients hired two attorneys:one to handle the third partner issue and the other to defend against respondent‘s lawsuit, which waseventually settled for $300. During the hearing, he conceded he should have not filed the lawsuit orshould have asserted a claim for quantum meruit. Board adopted panel‘s finding the he violated DR 2-106(A). During respondent‘s deposition, respondent‘s demeanor and explanation of his actionsdemonstrated that he was trying to exact punishment for what he believed to be an attempt to obtain freelegal advice, ―Abreach of a contract is a breach of a contract. They got $500 worth of advice, anyway.They were too ignorant to follow it . . . I‘m glad they had problems. They deserve it. That is whatshysters get for their dishonesty.‖ The board adopted the panel‘s findings that respondent violated DR7-102(A)(1) by taking action for the sole purpose to harass. During pre- hearing proceedings, relatorsuccessfully moved for a psychological examination. He ultimately complied, but first resisted themotion—he moved to strike, moved to dismiss the complaint, to vacate the order for the exam, for thechairwoman‘s recusal, and for sanctions. Also, respondent addressed a letter to the DisciplinaryCounsel and sent it to relator‘s counsel, but not the Disciplinary Counsel, creating the impression thatrespondent had filed a grievance against realtor‘s counsel. Board adopted panel‘s findings of violationsof Gov.Bar R. V(4)(G) and DR 1-102(A)(6) by attempting to bully and intimidate his way out of thedisciplinary process in violation. The board adopted the panels recommendation of a one-yearsuspension with six months stayed under the conditions that respondent (1) consult with OLAP, enterinto an OLAP contract to obtain whatever disability or dependency assistance he needs, and comply withall terms for the duration of the contract, and (2) complete a one-year probation under the supervisionof a monitoring attorney, appointed by relator to ensure compliance with ethical and professionalstandards of practice. The Supreme Court noted that while it has disciplined attorneys for chargingexcessive fees, taking legal action merely to harass another, or attempting to intimidate disciplinaryauthorities, it has never had a case involving all three improprieties at a single time. As aggravatingfactors, respondent‘s misconduct manifested a selfish motive, showed an initial lack of cooperation inthe disciplinary process and caused harm to the victims. BCGD Proc.Reg. 10(B)(1)(b), (e), and (h).Further, respondent did little to acknowledge his wrongdoing and remained indignant to the disciplinaryprocess. The only mitigating factor is that respondent has no prior disciplinary record. BCGDProc.Reg. 10(B)(2)(a). He adamantly denied any possibility of a mental disability or alcohol or drugdependency. The psychiatrist did not find mental illness within Gov.Bar.R. V(7)(A), but did findmaladaptive paranoid personality, and suspected that this mental health condition and possible alcohol
Case Summaries- 45abuse impede his ability to practice law. The court was troubled by his resistance to the possibility thathis conduct was the result of disability or dependency. The Supreme Court agreed with the Board‘sfindings and recommended sanction and so ordered. The court addressed the clear and convincingevidence standard, deference to panel‘s credibility determinations, and protection of the public as thepurpose of discipline.Rules Violated: DR 2-106(A), 7-102(A)(1); Gov.Bar R. V(4)(G)Aggravation: (b), (e), (h)Mitigation: (a)Prior Discipline: NO Procedure/ Process Issues: YES Criminal Conduct: NOPublic Official: NO Sanction: One-year suspension, 6 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: Cantrell, Disciplinary Counsel v.13
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 and 322:
Squire, Disciplinary Counsel v.130
Page 323 and 324:
Stafford, Disciplinary Counsel v.12
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

Create successful ePaper yourself

Delete template?

Save as template?