2016 Ohio 8255
Ohio2016Background
- Matthew J. King, Ohio attorney (admitted 1996), was the subject of a four-count disciplinary complaint alleging failure to notify clients he lacked professional-liability insurance, failure to provide competent representation (later withdrawn), and failure to cooperate with disciplinary investigations.
- King represented clients Brian Simms, Edward Ackles, and Frank Rogers; he did not provide separate written, signed notices that he lacked the required professional-liability insurance as Prof.Cond.R. 1.4(c) requires.
- Relator (Cleveland Metro. Bar Assn.) sent multiple letters and inquiries in 2014–2015; King failed to provide written responses and otherwise did not cooperate with the investigations, in violation of Prof.Cond.R. 8.1(b) and Gov.Bar R. V(9)(G).
- At the disciplinary hearing the parties submitted stipulated facts and exhibits; the panel and Board found violations of Prof.Cond.R. 1.4(c), 8.1(b), and Gov.Bar R. V(9)(G).
- The Board recommended a six-month suspension fully stayed on conditions: compliance with an OLAP contract, six hours of CLE in law‑office‑practice management, six months monitored probation, and no further misconduct. The Supreme Court adopted the report and imposed that stayed six‑month suspension.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether King violated Prof.Cond.R. 1.4(c) by failing to give clients signed written notice he lacked professional-liability insurance | Relator: King failed to provide the required separate written signed notices to Simms and Ackles | King: Had a paragraph in his fee agreement indicating no insurance; attempted compliance | Held: Violation of Prof.Cond.R. 1.4(c) — notice in fee agreement insufficient; separate signed notice required |
| Whether King failed to cooperate with disciplinary investigations in three matters | Relator: King ignored multiple requests and letters, failed to provide written responses or documentation | King: Acknowledged some contact, provided OLAP contract and met once; promised responses he did not deliver | Held: Violation of Prof.Cond.R. 8.1(b) and Gov.Bar R. V(9)(G) — willful failure to respond to disciplinary demands |
| Appropriate sanction for combined violations and aggravating/mitigating factors | Relator: Suspension with conditions to protect public and ensure remediation | King: Mitigation based on personal turmoil, OLAP enrollment, absence of prior discipline, and remorse | Held: Six‑month suspension, fully stayed upon conditions (OLAP compliance, CLE, six‑month monitored probation); stay to be lifted for noncompliance |
| Whether interim felony-conviction suspension affects disciplinary sanction here | Relator: Not directly argued as altering sanction recommendation | King: Noted interim criminal suspension exists | Held: Court noted interim suspension for felony conviction but found recommended stayed sanction commensurate with similar misconduct and adopted it |
Key Cases Cited
- Columbus Bar Assn. v. Roy, 143 Ohio St.3d 60, 2015-Ohio-1190, 34 N.E.3d 108 (example of public reprimand for failing to notify clients of lack of liability insurance)
- Lorain Cty. Bar Assn. v. Nelson, 144 Ohio St.3d 414, 2015-Ohio-4337, 44 N.E.3d 268 (public reprimand where failure to notify combined with neglect and lack of cooperation)
- Disciplinary Counsel v. Gorby, 142 Ohio St.3d 35, 2015-Ohio-476, 27 N.E.3d 510 (one-year stayed suspension where failure to notify accompanied by misappropriation)
- Akron Bar Assn. v. Binger, 139 Ohio St.3d 186, 2014-Ohio-2114, 10 N.E.3d 710 (18-month stayed suspension where failure to notify accompanied by other misconduct)