Columbus Bar Association v. LaFayette.
152 Ohio St. 3d 147
| Ohio | 2017Background
- LaFayette, Ohio attorney, admitted 2004, faced Board of Professional Conduct charges for misconduct in two client matters.
- Count One (Rapalo Enamorado): mishandled immigration matter, abandoned alien-relative petition, and failed to act competently before 2007; later involved improper filing and lack of insurance notice.
- Count Two (Coles-Morgan): filed a bankruptcy petition at the last minute, missed signatures, incomplete filings, and failed to stop a sheriff’s sale; court later discharged but grievance filed.
- Board found violations of DR 6-101(A)(1) and Prof.Cond.R. 1.1, 1.3, 3.1, plus 1.4(c) for failing to notify clients about lapse in malpractice insurance.
- Relator and board recommended stayed six-month suspension; after remand, case approved stayed sanction with condition; LaFayette contested neither party objected.
- Court concluded stayed six-month suspension is appropriate and sentenced LaFayette to cost-taxing; stay conditioned on no further misconduct.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether LaFayette violated competent representation (Rapalo matter). | LaFayette failed to competently handle immigration matters. | LaFayette contested the extent of incompetence and the post-2007 conduct. | Yes; violations found of 1.1 and related rules. |
| Whether LaFayette’s conduct after 2007 constituted negligent/diligence failures (Rapalo/Coles-Morgan). | LaFayette acted with insufficient diligence and failed to pursue necessary steps. | LaFayette disputes severity and scope of diligence failures. | Yes; violations found of 1.3 and 3.1. |
| Whether LaFayette failed to inform clients about malpractice-insurance status (1.4(c)). | LaFayette did not notify clients that insurance lapsed. | LaFayette disputes the factual basis of notice requirement. | Yes; 1.4(c) violation established. |
| Appropriate sanction for the misconduct. | Stayed suspension appropriate given factors and precedent. | LaFayette requested lesser or alternative sanctioning. | Stayed six-month suspension adopted. |
Key Cases Cited
- Columbus Bar Assn. v. Bhatt, 133 Ohio St.3d 131 (Ohio 2012) (public reprimand for neglect and failure to notify insurance lapse; mitigating factors noted)
- Cleveland Metro. Bar Assn. v. Thomas, 125 Ohio St.3d 24 (Ohio 2010) (conditionally stayed six-month suspension for filing a misleading document and neglecting another matter)
- Cleveland Metro. Bar Assn. v. Sherman, 126 Ohio St.3d 20 (Ohio 2010) (stayed suspension for neglect and failure to maintain insurance; weighing mitigating factors)