Disciplinary Counsel v. Goebl.
152 Ohio St. 3d 498
| Ohio | 2018Background
- Respondent Michael J. Goebl, admitted in Ohio in 2006, was investigated after an overdraft occurred in his IOLTA account following theft and fraudulent issuance of his IOLTA checks by a third party.
- Disciplinary Counsel (relator) sent letters and subpoenas seeking information and deposition attendance; Goebl provided an incomplete initial response, promised further information, then repeatedly failed to respond or appear for scheduled depositions.
- Relator personally served a second subpoena; Goebl again failed to appear or communicate. Relator alleged violations of Prof.Cond.R. 8.1(b) and Gov.Bar R. V(9)(G).
- Goebl later underwent a mental-health evaluation (diagnosed with adjustment disorder with anxiety) and, beginning April 2017, cooperated with the investigation and engaged with treatment/OLAP.
- The board found clear and convincing evidence of the charged violations, noting aggravation for lack of cooperation and mitigating factors including no prior discipline, no dishonest motive, and cooperation in proceedings; the board recommended a six-month suspension fully stayed on conditions.
- The Supreme Court adopted the board’s findings and imposed a six-month suspension fully stayed on conditions: submit to OLAP evaluation within 30 days, comply with recommended treatment, and commit no further misconduct; failure to comply will revoke the stay. Costs taxed to Goebl.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Goebl violated Prof.Cond.R. 8.1(b) by failing to respond to demands for information | Relator: Goebl knowingly failed to provide requested information and ignored follow-up communications | Goebl: Initially responded and later attributed noncooperation to personal/health issues; ultimately cooperated | Court: Violation proven by clear and convincing evidence |
| Whether Goebl violated Gov.Bar R. V(9)(G) by neglecting or refusing to assist in the investigation | Relator: Goebl’s failure to appear for depositions and to produce documents constituted neglect/refusal to assist | Goebl: Did not appear but later cooperated and sought evaluation/treatment | Court: Violation proven by clear and convincing evidence |
| Appropriate sanction for failure to cooperate with disciplinary investigation | Relator: Sanction warranted (range up to suspension); aggravating factor of noncooperation supports significant discipline | Goebl: Mitigating factors (no prior discipline, no dishonest motive, subsequent cooperation, mental-health treatment) warrant stayed suspension | Court: Six-month suspension fully stayed on conditions (OLAP evaluation/treatment and no further misconduct) |
| Weight to give diagnosed mental-health condition as mitigation | Relator: No persuasive evidence tying disorder to misconduct; limited mitigation value | Goebl: Mental-health diagnosis and OLAP engagement mitigate misconduct | Court: Declined to give mitigating weight to diagnosis absent evidence it contributed to misconduct, but required OLAP evaluation/treatment as condition of stayed suspension |
Key Cases Cited
- Lorain Cty. Bar Assn. v. Paterson, 98 Ohio St.3d 446 (public reprimand for failure to respond to investigation where no aggravators)
- Cleveland Bar Assn. v. James, 109 Ohio St.3d 310 (one-year suspension for failure to cooperate with disciplinary investigation)
- Cleveland Bar Assn. v. Jaffe, 121 Ohio St.3d 260 (suspension where respondent failed to cooperate)
- Disciplinary Counsel v. Bunstine, 144 Ohio St.3d 115 (suspension for noncooperation in disciplinary process)
- Geauga Cty. Bar Assn. v. Corrigan, 130 Ohio St.3d 84 (fully stayed suspension with mental-health conditions)
- Disciplinary Counsel v. Walton, 147 Ohio St.3d 357 (fully stayed suspension where mental-health treatment conditions applied)