Columbus Bar Assn. v. Kluesener (Slip Opinion)
2017 Ohio 4417
| Ohio | 2017Background
- Jeffrey T. Kluesener, admitted 2011, handled a products-liability case for Anthony Vera after working as a law clerk at the Christensen firm.
- Kluesener was lead counsel on Vera’s complaint but had no prior products-liability experience and did not seek firm assistance to retain an expert.
- He failed to respond to the defendant’s discovery requests and to a court order to respond; he voluntarily dismissed and later refiled the complaint but made minimal additional effort to develop expert evidence.
- After again failing to comply with discovery, the court dismissed Vera’s case with prejudice; Kluesener did not inform Vera of key developments or potential malpractice exposure.
- Vera terminated the representation, sued for malpractice and spoliation, and settled; Kluesener admitted violations of several Prof.Cond.R. provisions.
- The parties submitted a consent-to-discipline agreement; the Board and the Ohio Supreme Court adopted it, imposing a six-month suspension fully stayed on condition of no further misconduct.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Competence & diligence (Prof.Cond.R. 1.1, 1.3) | Kluesener neglected the matter, failed to obtain necessary expert, and did not pursue the case diligently | Admitted misconduct and agreed discipline via consent | Court found violations and accepted consent sanction |
| Communication & withdrawal obligations (Prof.Cond.R. 1.4(a)(3), 1.16(d)) | Kluesener failed to keep Vera informed and did not protect client interests on withdrawal | Admitted failure and acknowledged mitigation factors | Court found violations and accepted consent sanction |
| Discovery compliance (Prof.Cond.R. 3.4(d)) | He failed to respond to discovery and court orders, causing dismissal with prejudice | Admitted failure; no aggravating factors; cooperated in proceedings | Court found violation and accepted consent sanction |
| Appropriate sanction | Relator sought discipline proportionate to misconduct; referenced comparable precedents | Respondent agreed to a six-month suspension fully stayed given mitigating factors | Court 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 (neglect of client matter; six-month stayed suspension)
- Dayton Bar Assn. v. Hooks, 139 Ohio St.3d 462 (attorney failed to perform agreed work and failed to keep client informed; stayed suspension)
- Cleveland Metro. Bar Assn. v. Fonda, 138 Ohio St.3d 399 (failure of diligence and communication; disciplinary suspension)