Columbus Bar Assn. v. Williams
129 Ohio St. 3d 603
| Ohio | 2011Background
- Columbus Bar Association filed a disciplinary complaint against Lewis E. Williams Jr., alleging neglect, lack of competent representation, poor communication, impaired ability to represent, and failure to withdraw when impaired.
- Board's 2010 report recommended consent-to-discipline: two-year suspension with entire suspension stayed on conditions.
- Matter remanded twice by the Supreme Court for clerical correction and consideration of a harsher sanction.
- A hearing panel adopted stipulations: two-year suspension stayed, with two years of monitored probation, OLAP compliance, abstinence from alcohol and drugs, and drug testing as requested.
- Stipulated facts showed omissions in two client matters: failing to file a brief in an appeal and failing to appear for trial in an aggravated robbery/murder case, with no communicated default.
- The Board and Court acknowledged multiple violations of the Rules of Professional Conduct including 1.1, 1.3, 1.4, 1.16, and 6.2; mitigating factors included depression treatment, lack of prior discipline, cooperation, and remorse.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Did Williams commit professional misconduct by neglect and failure to communicate? | Bar alleges neglect, poor communication, and competence failures across matters. | Williams contends conduct was isolated, mitigated by treatment, and promptly disclosed. | Yes, misconduct established under multiple RPCs. |
| Were Williams's specific rule violations proven (RPC 1.1, 1.3, 1.4, 1.16, 6.2)? | Stipulations show violations in both cases. | Respondent disputes severity but concedes some failures; evidence supports violations. | Proven violations of RPC 1.1, 1.3, 1.4(a)(1)-(4), 1.16(a)(2), and 6.2. |
| What aggravating and mitigating factors justify sanctions? | Aggravating factors include multiple offenses and vulnerable clients; no excessive mitigating factors beyond remorse. | Mitigating factors include lack of prior discipline, cooperation, remorse, and depression treatment. | Aggravation found; mitigation present; overall factors support staying sanctions with conditions. |
| Is a two-year suspension with stay and conditions an appropriate sanction? | Two-year suspension with strict monitoring protects the public given serious misconduct. | Stayed sanctions complemented by OLAP, monitoring, and abstention adequately address risk. | Two-year suspension stayed on conditions, with monitored probation, is appropriate. |
| Should additional conditions (OLAP compliance, testing, and monitoring) accompany the stay? | Strict compliance and testing ensure ongoing accountability. | Respondent previously complied and will continue; monitoring sufficient. | Yes; impose two years of monitored probation, maintain OLAP, and permit drug testing as requested. |
Key Cases Cited
- Columbus Bar Assn. v. Buttacavoli, 96 Ohio St.3d 424 (2002-Ohio-4743) (aggravating factors and disciplinary standards relevant to sanctions)
- Disciplinary Counsel v. Broeren, 115 Ohio St.3d 473 (2007-Ohio-5251) (balancing aggravating and mitigating factors in sanctioning)
- Cleveland Metro. Bar Assn. v. Gresley, 127 Ohio St.3d 430 (2010-Ohio-6208) (two-year suspension with stayed portion; factors of severity and mitigation)