Disciplinary Counsel v. Farris (Slip Opinion), 2019 Ohio 4810

Vincent G. Farris (admitted 1993) represented Euclid Beach, L.P. in eviction and tax matters starting in 2012.
Farris prepared but failed to file a Board of Revision complaint contesting Euclid Beach’s 2012 taxable value by the March 31, 2013 deadline and then misrepresented to the client that he had filed and would notify them of a hearing.
He continued to conceal the missed filing; later failed to timely refile by the March 31, 2014 deadline and ultimately acknowledged the missed filings.
Euclid Beach sued for legal malpractice and obtained a $95,000 consent judgment; by the disciplinary hearing Farris had paid about $40,000 and agreed to finish payment within two years.
The parties stipulated that Farris violated Prof.Cond.R. 1.3, 1.4(a)(3), and 8.4(c); the Board recommended a conditionally stayed one-year suspension, which the Supreme Court adopted.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether Farris engaged in neglect and dishonesty	Disciplinary Counsel: Farris neglected client matters and lied to conceal neglect, violating 1.3, 1.4(a)(3), 8.4(c)	Farris initially argued no duty to file due to unpaid retainer and missing appraisal; later admitted responsibility and concealment	Court found violations of Prof.Cond.R. 1.3, 1.4(a)(3), and 8.4(c); dismissed one other alleged violation for insufficient evidence
Appropriate sanction for the misconduct	Disciplinary Counsel (and parties’ stipulation): a one-year suspension, stayed on conditions given mitigating factors	Farris sought leniency based on lack of prior discipline, remediation efforts, restitution payments, cooperation, and acceptance of responsibility	Court imposed a one-year suspension, stayed in its entirety on conditions (payment of judgment within two years and no further misconduct)
Whether dishonest conduct required an actual suspension	Relator: dishonesty typically warrants an actual suspension	Farris: mitigating evidence (isolated incident, long clean record, restitution, cooperation) supports a stayed suspension	Court applied precedent allowing a conditionally stayed one-year suspension where mitigating factors are substantial (citing similar cases)

Disciplinary Counsel v. Pfundstein, 128 Ohio St.3d 61 (stayed one-year suspension where dishonesty mitigated by significant factors)
Toledo Bar Assn. v. Crosser, 147 Ohio St.3d 499 (conditionally stayed one-year suspension for concealment and misrepresentations where mitigation present)
Disciplinary Counsel v. Miller, 149 Ohio St.3d 731 (stayed one-year suspension for isolated fraudulent act in otherwise unblemished career)
Disciplinary Counsel v. Rooney, 110 Ohio St.3d 349 (dishonest conduct by attorney generally warrants actual suspension)
Disciplinary Counsel v. Fumich, 116 Ohio St.3d 257 (cases recognizing that abundant mitigating evidence can justify a lesser sanction for dishonesty)
Disciplinary Counsel v. Edwards, 134 Ohio St.3d 271 (primary purpose of discipline is public protection)
Disciplinary Counsel v. O'Neill, 103 Ohio St.3d 204 (disciplinary sanctions aim to protect the public)