Akron Bar Assn. v. DeLoach
978 N.E.2d 181
Ohio2012Background
- Respondent Jana DeLoach was admitted to practice in 1999 and previously suspended with a two-year probation in 2011.
- In October 2011, Akron Bar Association charged DeLoach with violating Prof.Cond.R. 1.4(c) for not notifying clients in writing about lack of malpractice insurance.
- The Board accepted stipulations and recommended a public reprimand; the panel adopted this and the Supreme Court affirmed.
- Stipulated facts show DeLoach knew she lacked liability insurance and did not inform clients in writing or obtain signatures.
- The Board found one aggravating factor (prior discipline) and substantial mitigation due to DeLoach’s dedication to indigent clients and character witnesses.
- The Court affirmed the public reprimand, noting it fits the goals of public protection and follows precedent.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether failure to notify clients of no malpractice insurance warrants sanction | DeLoach | DeLoach | Public reprimand warranted |
| Appropriate sanction given prior discipline and current misconduct | Akron Bar Association | DeLoach | Public reprimand consistent with sanctions standards |
| Weight of aggravating vs mitigating factors | AGG factor present; mitigation substantial | Mitigation outweighs aggravation | Mitigation outweighed by aggravation but still results in public reprimand |
Key Cases Cited
- Cincinnati Bar Assn. v. Trainor, 110 Ohio St.3d 141 (2006-Ohio-3825) (failure to notify clients about lack of malpractice insurance warrants public reprimand)
- Toledo Bar Assn. v. Scott, 129 Ohio St.3d 479 (2011-Ohio-4185) (sanctions aim to protect the public, not punish the offender)
- Stark Cty. Bar Assn. v. Buttacavoli, 96 Ohio St.3d 424 (2002-Ohio-4743) (consideration of duties violated and sanctions in similar cases)