Disciplinary Counsel v. Dundon
129 Ohio St. 3d 571
| Ohio | 2011Background
- Dundon admitted in 1985 to Ohio bar; 2010 misconduct complaint filed regarding Zell estate planning.
- Dundon helped create three LLCs for Zell and took a $5,000 retainer and $5,000 balance; Zell paid the fee in February 2007.
- Dundon transferred office to Cincinnati in Feb–Mar 2007, ceased Centerville practice, and failed to timely follow up on LLC transfers and related documents.
- Dundon failed to deliver or timely confirm trust documents to the bank, and did not respond promptly to Zell or her attorney’s requests; he later refunded Zell’s $10,000 after learning new attorney prepared new estate-planning documents.
- Panel and board found violations of DR 6-101(A)(3), 9-102(B)(4), and Prof.Cond.R. 1.3, 1.4(a)(2)-(4); the recommended sanction was a public reprimand, which the Supreme Court adopted.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Did Dundon neglect a legal matter entrusted to him? | Dundon neglected Zell’s matter by failing to monitor status and complete the estate plan. | Dundon contends he prepared documents and that delays were due to client actions or third parties. | Yes; neglected entrusted matter. |
| Did Dundon fail to promptly deliver client funds? | Dundon did not promptly pay or deliver Zell’s funds when due. | Dundon acted by eventually returning funds after review. | Yes; failure to promptly deliver funds. |
| Did Dundon fail to reasonably consult with and keep Zell informed? | Dundon did not reasonably consult or communicate about the status of the LLCs and trust. | Dundon maintained some communications but timelines were problematic. | Yes; failures to consult and inform. |
| Is public reprimand the appropriate sanction? | Six-month stayed suspension urged; argues for stronger discipline. | Mitigating factors present; less severe sanction appropriate. | Public reprimand; costs assessed. |
Key Cases Cited
- Stark Cty. Bar Assn. v. Buttacavoli, 96 Ohio St.3d 424 (2002-Ohio-4743) (relevant factors for sanctions and aggravating/mitigating considerations)
- Disciplinary Counsel v. Broeren, 115 Ohio St.3d 473 (2007-Ohio-5251) (aggravating/mitigating factors framework for sanctions)
- Akron Bar Assn. v. Freedman, 128 Ohio St.3d 497 (2011-Ohio-1959) (sanctions framework and conduct considerations)
- Disciplinary Counsel v. Harp, 91 Ohio St.3d 385 (2001-Ohio-401) (six-month stayed suspension with conditions for neglect and failure to act)
- Cincinnati Bar Assn. v. Wilson, 89 Ohio St.3d 243 (2000-Ohio-484) (six-month stayed suspension for neglect and failure to pursue client objectives)