2016 Ohio 834
Ohio2016Background
- Joseph Dues Reed, an Ohio attorney admitted 1983, faced disciplinary charges for neglecting client matters, failing to cooperate with disciplinary authorities, and related misconduct; he had prior disciplinary sanctions.
- Three client matters: (1) Toni Gravely paid $525 for a divorce filing that Reed never performed and then ignored her and disciplinary inquiries; (2) R. Thomas Pierce obtained a $1,125 arbitration award against Reed, who delayed payment and ultimately paid short of the award after 14 months; (3) Joshua Smith’s girlfriend paid $1,000 for representation that Reed never provided and Reed ignored grievance and arbitration communications.
- Reed ignored letters of inquiry and a subpoena to appear for a deposition in the Gravely grievance and failed to respond to arbitration and grievance communications in other matters.
- Board found violations of Prof.Cond.R. 1.1, 1.3, 1.4(a)(3), 1.4(a)(4), 8.1(b), 8.4(h), and former Gov.Bar R. V(4)(G); restitution owed to Gravely, Pierce, and Smith (or the Lawyers’ Fund) remained outstanding.
- Board recommended a two-year suspension with six months stayed on conditions; the Supreme Court accepted misconduct findings but imposed a two-year suspension with 18 months stayed and 18 months monitored probation upon reinstatement, conditioned on restitution, OLAP participation, and no further misconduct.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Reed committed professional misconduct (neglect, lack of communication, failure to cooperate) | Relator: Reed neglected multiple matters, failed to communicate, ignored arbitration/grievance procedures and a subpoena, violating multiple Prof.Cond.R. | Reed: Failures were not dishonest; health problems and prescription pain medication contributed; some conduct unintentional | Court: Accepted board’s findings of violations of the listed rules and misconduct findings. |
| Whether Reed violated rule prohibiting failure to respond to disciplinary authority (8.1(b)) and conduct reflecting adversely on fitness (8.4(h)) | Relator: Nonresponse to inquiries and subpoena supports 8.1(b) and 8.4(h) findings | Reed: Eventually stipulated; argued mitigation via cooperation and health issues | Court: Found noncooperation an aggravating factor; 8.1(b) and 8.4(h) violations sustained. |
| Appropriate aggravating/mitigating factors and effect of health problems | Relator: Prior discipline, pattern, multiple offenses, lack of cooperation, harm, failure to make restitution are aggravating; no mitigation | Reed: Health, solo practice, and stipulation justify mitigation and a fully stayed suspension | Court: Aggravating factors upheld except dishonest/selfish motive not clearly established; health mitigated that single factor only. |
| Appropriate sanction (suspension length and stayed period) | Relator/Board: Two-year suspension with six months stayed conditioned on OLAP and restitution | Reed: Entire suspension should be stayed | Court: Two-year suspension with 18 months stayed; require restitution, OLAP contract, monitored probation 18 months upon reinstatement; stay to be lifted if conditions not met. |
Key Cases Cited
- Disciplinary Counsel v. Bricker, 137 Ohio St.3d 35 (2013) (failure to cooperate and fee-arbitration noncompliance can support 8.4(h) finding)
- Trumbull Cty. Bar Assn. v. Large, 134 Ohio St.3d 172 (2012) (two-year suspensions where attorneys neglected multiple matters, failed to cooperate, and had numerous aggravating factors)
- Toledo Bar Assn. v. Harvey, 141 Ohio St.3d 346 (2014) (two-year suspension with partial stay for multiple neglectful matters, noncooperation, and prior discipline)
- Toledo Bar Assn. v. Hales, 120 Ohio St.3d 340 (2008) (disciplinary goal is public protection and individualized sanctioning)
- In re Disciplinary Action Against Ruffenach, 486 N.W.2d 387 (Minn. 1992) (courts should consider case-specific circumstances when imposing discipline)