2011 Ohio 6016
Ohio2011Background
- Davis, admitted to practice in 1997, was previously suspended in 2009 for two years with one year stayed; an actual two-year suspension was imposed on April 29, 2010, with reinstatement conditions remaining unfulfilled and no reinstatement application filed.
- On May 27, 2010, Disciplinary Counsel charged Davis in a three-count complaint alleging professional-conduct violations; this was her third appearance before the Ohio Supreme Court.
- The Board of Commissioners on Grievances and Discipline recommended an indefinite suspension and restitution to clients; the panel adopted stipulations, made additional findings, and the court adopted the board’s conclusions.
- Count 1 involved the Cash Station matter, where Davis allegedly received checks during suspension and failed to return client files and unused fees; the panel found some evidence of misconduct but lacked definitive proof of full conversion of funds.
- Count 2 involved the O’Rourke matter, where Davis failed to perform work, did not return the retainer or complete the file after suspensions were in effect, and ignored inquiries; the board found violations.
- Count 3 involved the Shreck matter, where Davis failed to respond to inquiries and deliver requested estate-planning documents; the board found violations and Davis did not timely cooperate.
- The panel found aggravating factors (prior discipline, dishonest motive, pattern of misconduct, failure to cooperate, harm to vulnerable clients) and no mitigating factors, leading to an indefinitesuspension with restitution ordered to Joann Taylor ($300) and Steven O’Rourke ($2,500), plus accounting to Cash Station and costs.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Did Davis’s conduct in the Cash Station matter violate disciplinary rules? | Davis violated 8.1(b), 8.4(d), Gov.Bar R V(4)(G), 1.3, 1.16(d), 1.16(e). | No definitive proof of full conversion; improper handling alleged but not proved to the required standard. | Yes; violations found for 8.1(b), 8.4(d), Gov.Bar R V(4)(G), 1.3, 1.16(d), 1.16(e). (8.4(b), 1.5(a), 8.4(h) not proven). |
| Did Davis’s conduct in the O’Rourke matter violate disciplinary rules? | Davis violated 8.1(b), 8.4(d), 8.4(h), Gov.Bar R V(4)(G), 1.16(d), 1.16(e), 1.3. | Retainer mismanagement and non-performance alleged but lack of complete documentation disputed. | Yes; violations found for 8.1(b), 8.4(d), 8.4(h), Gov.Bar R V(4)(G), 1.16(d), 1.16(e), 1.3. |
| Did Davis’s conduct in the Shreck matter violate disciplinary rules? | Davis violated 1.16(d), 8.1(b), 8.4(d), 8.4(h). | Limited evidence of noncooperation beyond failure to return files. | Yes; violations found for 1.16(d), 8.1(b), 8.4(d), 8.4(h). |
Key Cases Cited
- Cleveland Metro. Bar Assn. v. Gottehrer, 124 Ohio St.3d 519 (2010-Ohio-929) (indefinite suspension for retainer failure, nonperformance, and noncooperation)
- Columbus Bar Assn. v. Clovis, 125 Ohio St.3d 434 (2010-Ohio-1859) (indefinite suspension for failure to perform, failure to return documents, and noncooperation)
- Columbus Bar Assn. v. Van Sickle, 128 Ohio St.3d 376 (2011-Ohio-774) (indefinite suspension for practicing while suspended, failure to register, nonperformance, and failure to return funds and documents)