Disciplinary Counsel v. Domis.
126 N.E.3d 1129
| Ohio | 2019Background
- Respondent Christian Brian Domis, an Ohio attorney admitted in 1998, was assigned by the National Freedom Project (NFP) to represent Joel J. Reissig in a Hardin County criminal matter; Reissig paid NFP, but Domis received no fee.
- On arraignment day (Oct 18, 2017) Domis arrived late and was initially told he could not appear because the Supreme Court website showed him as not currently registered; he paid a $50 late-registration fee and later appeared.
- The court set further proceedings but Domis failed to appear at a December 12, 2017 status conference; he had told the client he had moved to California and would not attend, but he did not notify the court or prosecutor or obtain leave to withdraw.
- Domis also failed to inform the client that he did not carry professional-liability (malpractice) insurance.
- Disciplinary counsel charged multiple Professional Conduct Rules violations; parties entered a consent-to-discipline agreement. The board found two aggravating factors (prior discipline for late registration and multiple offenses) and several mitigating factors (no dishonest motive, cooperation, acknowledgment of wrongdoing, no client harm).
- The Supreme Court adopted the consent agreement, found multiple rule violations, and imposed a public reprimand; costs taxed to Domis.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Domis violated duties of competence and diligence (Prof.Cond.R. 1.1, 1.3) | Domis neglected the client by failing to appear and to manage the representation | Domis cited administrative registration issue and move out of state as reasons for nonappearance | Court held Domis violated Rules 1.1 and 1.3 |
| Whether Domis failed to communicate and disclose lack of malpractice insurance (Prof.Cond.R. 1.4(c)) | Relator asserted Domis did not inform client of insurance status or timely communicate | Domis acknowledged he failed to inform client but claimed no fee received and cooperated in inquiry | Court held Domis violated Rule 1.4(c) |
| Whether Domis improperly withdrew without leave and failed to protect client interests (Prof.Cond.R. 1.16(c), 1.16(d)) | Relator alleged Domis abandoned representation without court leave and did not take protective steps | Domis said he informed client and NFP but did not notify court or prosecutor | Court held Domis violated Rules 1.16(c) and 1.16(d) |
| Whether Domis violated tribunal rules and prejudiced administration of justice (Prof.Cond.R. 3.4(c), 8.4(d)) | Relator argued Domis knowingly disobeyed tribunal obligations and engaged in conduct prejudicial to administration of justice | Domis contended registration fee issue was rectified and there was no client harm | Court held Domis violated Rules 3.4(c) and 8.4(d) |
Key Cases Cited
- Disciplinary Counsel v. Mickens, 151 Ohio St.3d 302 (Ohio 2016) (sanctioning similar lawyer neglect and rule violations)
- Lorain Cty. Bar Assn. v. Nelson, 144 Ohio St.3d 414 (Ohio 2015) (public reprimand for neglect, lack of communication, and failure to disclose lack of malpractice insurance)
- Lorain Cty. Bar Assn. v. Godles, 128 Ohio St.3d 279 (Ohio 2010) (public reprimand for communication failures and failure to advise client of lack of malpractice insurance)