Columbus Bar Assn. v. Kluesener (Slip Opinion)
81 N.E.3d 457
Ohio2017Background
- Jeffrey T. Kluesener, admitted 2011, was lead counsel (and sole named plaintiff’s counsel) on a products‑liability suit for Anthony Vera arising from a 2010 workplace injury.
- Kluesener lacked experience with product‑liability litigation, did not seek firm colleagues’ assistance, and knew an expert was necessary but failed to retain one.
- He failed to respond to the defendant’s discovery and to a court order to respond; after a voluntary dismissal he refiled and again failed to comply with discovery, leading to dismissal with prejudice.
- Kluesener did not keep Vera informed about the expert issue, discovery noncompliance, case dismissal, or the potential for a legal‑malpractice claim; Vera later obtained new counsel and settled a malpractice/spoliation claim.
- Kluesener admitted violations of Prof.Cond.R. 1.1, 1.3, 1.4(a)(3), 1.16(d), and 3.4(d); no aggravating factors were found and several mitigating factors (no prior discipline, cooperation, acknowledgment) were present.
- The parties submitted a consent‑to‑discipline agreement recommending a six‑month suspension, fully stayed on condition of no further misconduct; the Board and Supreme Court adopted the agreement.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Kluesener violated professional conduct rules by neglecting the case, failing to respond to discovery, and failing to communicate with the client | Columbus Bar Assn.: Kluesener neglected the matter, failed to comply with discovery, and failed to keep the client informed, violating multiple Prof.Cond.R. | Kluesener admitted the misconduct (no contrary defense); mitigation emphasized lack of prior discipline and cooperation | Court: Violations of Prof.Cond.R. 1.1, 1.3, 1.4(a)(3), 1.16(d), and 3.4(d) were found and adopted as stipulated |
| Appropriate sanction for the misconduct | Relator: A six‑month suspension, fully stayed (conditioned on no further misconduct), is appropriate given comparable precedent and mitigating factors | Respondent: Agreed to the consent sanction and mitigating factors; no opposition to a stayed suspension | Court: Adopted the consent‑to‑discipline agreement and imposed a six‑month suspension, fully stayed on condition of no further misconduct |
Key Cases Cited
- Dayton Bar Assn. v. Sebree, 96 Ohio St.3d 50 (attorney neglected client matter and failed to keep client informed; six‑month stayed suspension)
- Cleveland Metro. Bar Assn. v. Fonda, 138 Ohio St.3d 399 (attorney failed to act with diligence and to keep clients informed; comparable stayed suspension)
- Dayton Bar Assn. v. Hooks, 139 Ohio St.3d 462 (attorney accepted retainer but failed to perform and failed to keep client informed; comparable stayed suspension)