2014 Ohio 2339
Ohio2014Background
- Respondent is David Edmund Stenson, Ohio attorney admitted in 1989.
- Dayton Bar Association charged him in Oct. 2012 with six Rule violations for frivolous pro se filing, dismissal without client consent, and neglect.
- Stenson admitted to violations in Counts I and V as amended and Counts III and IV as amended; Counts II and VI were withdrawn.
- A disciplinary panel found misconduct in Huger and Bonner matters and recommended a six-month stayed suspension with a refund condition.
- The Board adopted the panel’s findings and recommended sanction; the Supreme Court suspended Stenson for six months stayed, conditioned on refund of $2,500 and no further misconduct.
- Huger matter involved filing a pro se complaint and later dismissing it without Huger’s consent, leading to sanctions against Huger totaling $10,400, while Stenson charged fees and failed to communicate limits of representation.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Frivolous filing and dismissal without consent—RPC violations? | Huger's claim; Stenson filed pro se complaint despite limits. | Stenson contends actions were within representation scope. | Six-month stayed suspension with refund and no further misconduct. |
| Duty of communication and client control—scope and consent violated? | Stenson failed to confirm scope/limits and obtain consent to dismissal. | Stenson acted with belief of strategic advantage; not adequately communicated. | Violation of 1.2(a) and 8.4(a) established; sanction upheld. |
| Diligence in handling Bonner/BSI matter—RPC 1.3 violated? | Failure to timely request a hearing led to license revocation. | Misunderstanding about information requests extended time; not diligent. | Disciplinary sanction upheld as part of stayed six-month suspension. |
| Appropriateness of sanction given aggravating/mitigating factors? | Stay of six months with monetary refund is appropriate. | Argued for lesser sanction (public reprimand). | Six-month stayed suspension with $2,500 refund and no further misconduct warranted. |
Key Cases Cited
- Stark Cty. Bar Assn. v. Buttacavoli, 96 Ohio St.3d 424 (2002-Ohio-4743) (aggravating and mitigating factors in sanctions; multiple misconducts recognized)
- Disciplinary Counsel v. Broeren, 115 Ohio St.3d 473 (2007-Ohio-5251) (utilizes aggravating/mitigating factors in sanctioning)
- Cleveland Metro. Bar Assn. v. Thomas, 125 Ohio St.3d 24 (2010-Ohio-1031) (six-month stayed suspension for various client-matter failures)
- Cuyahoga Cty. Bar Assn. v. Drain, 120 Ohio St.3d 288 (2008-Ohio-6141) (stayed six-month suspension for neglect and missed deadlines)
- Cleveland Metro. Bar Assn. v. Sherman, 126 Ohio St.3d 20 (2010-Ohio-2469) (nine-month stayed suspension for neglect and misrepresentation)