142 Ohio St. 3d 111
Ohio2015Background
- Gary Alan McGee, admitted in Ohio in 1981, was charged by the Butler County Bar Association with professional misconduct in a personal-injury matter: neglect, failure to reasonably communicate, and voluntarily dismissing the case without the client’s knowledge or consent.
- The parties entered an amended consent-to-discipline agreement in which McGee stipulated to many factual allegations and to violations of Prof.Cond.R. 1.2, 1.4, 1.4(a)(2), 1.4(a)(3), and 1.4(b).
- Relator withdrew the allegations contained in count two of the complaint as part of the agreement.
- The parties identified mitigating factors: no prior disciplinary record, no dishonest or selfish motive, cooperation with proceedings, and good character; no aggravating factors were noted.
- The Board of Commissioners on Grievances and Discipline recommended adoption of the amended consent-to-discipline agreement and a public reprimand, citing comparable prior public-reprimand cases.
- The Supreme Court of Ohio adopted the agreement, found McGee violated the cited professional-conduct rules, publicly reprimanded him, and taxed costs to McGee.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether McGee neglected the client’s personal-injury matter and improperly dismissed the case without client consent | McGee neglected the matter and dismissed it without consulting or obtaining the client’s consent, violating duties of representation | McGee stipulated to the facts in the consent agreement (no contested defense presented) | Court accepted stipulation and found violations of Prof.Cond.R. 1.2 and related rules |
| Whether McGee failed to reasonably communicate and keep the client informed | Relator argued McGee failed to consult on means, keep the client informed, and explain matters sufficiently for informed decisions | McGee admitted the communication failures in the consent agreement | Court found violations of Prof.Cond.R. 1.4, 1.4(a)(2), 1.4(a)(3), and 1.4(b) |
| Appropriate sanction for the stipulated misconduct | Relator proposed a public reprimand, relying on analogous precedents | McGee agreed to the public reprimand in the consent-to-discipline agreement | Court adopted the agreement and imposed a public reprimand |
Key Cases Cited
- Lorain Cty. Bar Assn. v. Godles, 128 Ohio St.3d 279 (publicly reprimanding attorney for minimal work on personal-injury case and failures to reasonably communicate)
- Disciplinary Counsel v. Dundon, 129 Ohio St.3d 571 (publicly reprimanding attorney for poor communication, failure to follow up on case documents, and delay in refunding fees)
- Akron Bar Assn. v. Freedman, 128 Ohio St.3d 497 (publicly reprimanding attorney for failures to communicate, to timely inform about case status, and to disclose lack of liability insurance and refund rights)
- Columbus Bar Assn. v. Bhatt, 133 Ohio St.3d 131 (publicly reprimanding attorney for neglecting matters, poor client communication, and failing to notify clients of lapsed liability insurance)