2016 Ohio 5085
Ohio2016Background
- In May 2007 Michael Williams retained attorney Darwin R. Roseman for a personal-injury claim; Roseman filed suit near the statute-of-limitations deadline in 2009.
- Roseman failed to respond to defense discovery and, after a court order to comply, filed a notice of voluntary dismissal without prejudice.
- Roseman did not refile the suit within one year of dismissal (by Feb. 18, 2011), causing Williams’s claim to be time-barred.
- Williams testified he did not discharge Roseman before the refiling deadline; Roseman sent letters after the deadline asserting that Williams had fired him.
- The panel found Roseman’s post-hoc letters were deceptive; Williams later obtained a $135,000 malpractice judgment against Roseman.
- The Board found violations of Prof.Cond.R. 1.1, 1.3, 1.4(a)(1)–(4), and 8.4(c), and recommended a one-year suspension with six months stayed on conditions; the Supreme Court adopted that sanction.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Roseman neglected Williams’s case and failed to refile, causing forfeiture of the claim | Roseman neglected discovery and failed to refile by the deadline, barring the claim | Roseman claimed Williams discharged him before the refiling deadline | Held: Roseman failed to refile; panel credited Williams and found neglect |
| Whether Roseman communicated truthfully about the status of the case and the discharge | Williams: Roseman lied in post-deadline letters claiming Williams had terminated him | Roseman: asserted he was discharged earlier (denying deceit) | Held: Panel found Roseman’s letters were after-the-fact falsehoods; violation of honesty rule |
| What professional-conduct rules were violated | Relator: violations of competency, diligence, communication, and dishonesty rules | Roseman contested factual basis for violations | Held: Violations of Prof.Cond.R. 1.1, 1.3, 1.4(a)(1)–(4), and 8.4(c) affirmed |
| Appropriate sanction for neglect plus client-directed dishonesty | Relator: suspension; conditioned reinstatement and restitution | Respondent: mitigation (no prior discipline, cooperation) argued for leniency | Held: One-year suspension with six months stayed on conditions (probation and resolving malpractice judgment) |
Key Cases Cited
- Cuyahoga Cty. Bar Assn. v. Wise, 108 Ohio St.3d 164, 842 N.E.2d 35 (court defers to panel credibility findings)
- Disciplinary Counsel v. Potter, 126 Ohio St.3d 50, 930 N.E.2d 307 (violations of Prof.Cond.R. 8.4(c) typically require suspension)
- Disciplinary Counsel v. Rohrer, 124 Ohio St.3d 65, 919 N.E.2d 180 (principles on suspensions for dishonesty)
- Disciplinary Counsel v. Stollings, 111 Ohio St.3d 155, 855 N.E.2d 479 (six-month suspension for neglect plus false assurances to client)
- Disciplinary Counsel v. Keller, 110 Ohio St.3d 240, 852 N.E.2d 1195 (two-year suspension with stay where neglect and false statements caused statute-bar and malpractice judgment)
- Disciplinary Counsel v. Johnson, 122 Ohio St.3d 293, 910 N.E.2d 1034 (one-year suspension with six months stayed for neglect plus misrepresentations)