2011 Ohio 3178
Ohio2011Background
- Respondent Troxell, Ohio attorney since 1996, faced a three-count misconduct complaint filed Feb 8, 2010 by the Columbus Bar Association.
- Count One: neglect of a client’s personal-injury matter, improper fee withholding and failure to account for $15,000 plus subrogated expenses; failed to respond to inquiries and to produce documents; missed depositions.
- Count Two: failure to provide competent representation and reasonable diligence, failure to communicate, and failure to cooperate with disciplinary investigations after a 2007-2008 auto-accident matter and a $4,000 settlement not properly handled.
- Count Three: non-response to a third grievance; attempted service failed; respondent did not appear for a deposition; grievance later withdrawn but non-cooperation found.
- A master commissioner recommended indefinite suspension; board adopted, finding multiple violations of Prof.Cond.R. 1.1, 1.3, 1.4, 1.15(d), 8.1(b), 8.4(b), and 8.4(h) and Gov.Bar R. V(4)(G).
- The Supreme Court adopted the findings, weighed aggravating and mitigating factors, and imposed an indefinite suspension from the practice of law.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Did Troxell’s conduct warrant indefinite suspension? | Troxell engaged in multiple offenses, failed to cooperate, and harmed clients. | Not explicitly stated in the opinion; Troxell did not adequately defend or respond. | Yes; indefinite suspension warranted. |
| Was there a failure to provide competent representation and diligent conduct? | Count Two shows incompetence and lack of diligence. | Respondent contends limited or no proof of repeated failures to represent. | Count Two established violations of 1.1, 1.3, 1.4, 1.15(d) and 8.4(h). |
| Did respondent’s failure to respond to disciplinary inquiries support sanction? | Troxell repeatedly ignored inquiries and failed to cooperate. | Not present in record; no defense offered. | Yes; violations of 8.1(b) and Gov.Bar R V(4)(G). |
| Should the sanctions reflect aggravating and mitigating factors? | Factors show dishonesty, multiple offenses, and lack of restitution. | Mitigating factor considered; no prior disciplinary record. | Court upheld indefinite suspension based on aggravating factors outweighing mitigating factors. |
Key Cases Cited
- Cleveland Metro. Bar Assn. v. Kaplan, 124 Ohio St.3d 278 (2010-Ohio-167) (disorderly conduct generally warrants indefinite suspension)
- Akron Bar Assn. v. Goodlet, 115 Ohio St.3d 7 (2007-Ohio-4271) (standard for sanction in neglect and noncooperation cases)
- Disciplinary Counsel v. Mathewson, 113 Ohio St.3d 365 (2007-Ohio-2076) (general sanction guidance for neglect and noncooperation)
- Stark Cty. Bar Assn. v. Buttacavoli, 96 Ohio St.3d 424 (2002-Ohio-4743) (aggravating/mitigating factors in discipline)