Akron Bar Assn. v. DeLoach
130 Ohio St. 3d 153
| Ohio | 2011Background
- Respondent Jana Bassinger DeLoach is an Ohio attorney admitted 1999.
- A two-count complaint charged violations of Prof.Cond.R. 1.3, 1.4 and 8.4(c) plus Gov.Bar R. V(4)(G).
- Panel dismissed Count One and part of Count Two; found a violation of 8.4(c).
- Respondent allegedly failed to file indigency documents and misrepresented letter communications to the investigator.
- Sanction proposed: six-month suspension, stayed, with two years’ monitored probation; costs taxed to respondent.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether DeLoach violated Prof.Cond.R. 8.4(c). | Board found misrepresentation; deceptive conduct occurred. | Respondent concedes but emphasizes mitigating factors. | Yes, 8.4(c) violation established. |
| Whether the sanction of six months’ suspension stayed with probation is appropriate. | Sanction should reflect misconduct and protect the public. | Stayed suspension with probation is warranted given mitigating factors. | Six-month actual suspension with two years’ monitored probation upheld. |
| Whether mitigating factors justify a stayed sanction. | Mitigating factors require leniency | Significant mitigating factors exist (no prior record, remorse, no harm). | Yes, mitigating factors justify the stayed sanction. |
| Whether there is an aggravating factor supporting discipline. | Respondent admitted deceptive practices during discipline. | No argument to negate the admission; no selfish motive shown. | Aggravating factor present due to admission of deception. |
| Whether costs should be taxed to respondent. | Costs are appropriately taxed to respondent. | Costs taxed to respondent. |
Key Cases Cited
- Stark Cty. Bar Assn. v. Buttacavoli, 96 Ohio St.3d 424 (2002-Ohio-4743) (guides sanctions for misconduct; relevant factors.)
- Disciplinary Counsel v. Broeren, 115 Ohio St.3d 473 (2007-Ohio-5251) (discusses mitigating vs. aggravating factors.)
- Disciplinary Counsel v. Rohrer, 124 Ohio St.3d 65 (2009-Ohio-5930) (mitigating factors can warrant lesser sanction.)
- Disciplinary Counsel v. Carroll, 106 Ohio St.3d 84 (2005-Ohio-3805) (analogous DR 1-102(A)(4) analysis for sanctions.)
- Disciplinary Counsel v. Ricketts, 128 Ohio St.3d 271 (2010-Ohio-6240) (lesser sanction where lack of malicious motive.)