Disciplinary Counsel v. Bogdanski
135 Ohio St. 3d 235
| Ohio | 2013Background
- Bogdanski, Columbus attorney since 2002, faced disciplinary charges in 2011 for forging a client’s signature and notarizing it, plus alleged incompetence and neglect in two other matters.
- She admitted most factual allegations but did not appear at the 2012 board hearing; hearing evidence included a certified-mail receipt signed by another person as notice.
- Board panel found clear and convincing evidence of misconduct and recommended indefinite suspension with reinstatement conditions.
- Morales matter: Bogdanski forged Ruben Morales’s signature on an affidavit, notarized it, filed the forged affidavit, and forged the verification page of a document.
- Phillips matter: Bogdanski’s representation was incompetent and neglected, causing late filings, missed hearings, and poor client communication.
- Leonard matter: Bogdanski’s handling was similarly negligent and confusing, including missed hearings, misstatements to court, and failure to discuss insurance status.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Did forging signatures violate ethics rules? | Morales asserts misconduct for forged signatures. | Bogdanski disputed that forging constituted misconduct. | Yes; violated 3.3(a)(3), 8.4 and related provisions. |
| Did incompetence and neglect in Phillips matter amount to misconduct? | Phillips’s failure to file/delay harmed client and breached duties. | Bogdanski contested degree of fault or impact. | Yes; violated 1.1, 1.3, 1.4, 8.4, Gov.Bar R. V(4)(G). |
| Did Leonard matter reflect ongoing misconduct and failure to communicate? | Leonard suffered from repeated missed hearings and misstatements. | Bogdanski offered excuses but disputes severity. | Yes; violated 1.1, 1.3, 1.4, 8.4 and 8.4(h). |
| What sanctions are appropriate for the misconduct? | Indefinite suspension with reinstatement conditions warranted. | Bogdanski argued for lesser discipline or remediation. | Indefinite suspension with reinstatement conditions; costs taxed. |
Key Cases Cited
- Stark Cty. Bar Assn. v. Buttacavoli, 96 Ohio St.3d 424 (2002-Ohio-4743) (guides evaluating sanctions in misconduct)
- Disciplinary Counsel v. Broeren, 115 Ohio St.3d 473 (2007-Ohio-5251) (factors for sanctions in disciplinary cases)
- Disciplinary Counsel v. Mathewson, 113 Ohio St.3d 365 (2007-Ohio-2076) (negligence and failure to cooperate warrant indefinite suspension)
- Disciplinary Counsel v. Hoff, 124 Ohio St.3d 269 (2010-Ohio-136) (pattern of misconduct with dishonesty supports severe sanctions)
- Disciplinary Counsel v. Golden, 97 Ohio St.3d 230 (2002-Ohio-5934) (dishonesty and lack of cooperation justify suspension)