Disciplinary Counsel v. Lape, 130 Ohio St. 3d 273

Lynn Ann Lape, admitted in 1997, was previously suspended for failure to register and reinstated in 2009-2010.
Disciplinary Counsel filed a complaint in June 2010 alleging neglect of a bankruptcy matter, failure to safeguard/return client property, and failure to cooperate in investigation.
Timerding clients filed bankruptcy in 2008; Lape did not respond to questions or return original documents after discharge, and later claimed she lost the file.
Relator’s letters were signed for by staff but Lape claimed she never saw them; she did not timely answer the disciplinary complaint or respond to motions.
After deposition, Lape admitted loss of the file and agreed to assist but did not follow up; replacement bonds were eventually issued by the Treasury.
The parties stipulated misconduct under Prof.Cond.R. 1.3, 1.15, 1.16(d), 8.1(b), and Gov.Bar R. V(4)(G), and recommended a six-month stayed suspension with six hours of CLE in office management.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether Lape violated ethical rules asserted by relator	Lape violated 1.3, 1.15, 1.16(d), 8.1(b), Gov.Bar R. V(4)(G).	Lape contested extent of alleged neglect and cooperation; disputed timing and causation.	Yes; violations established and sanction warranted.
Appropriate sanction for the misconduct	Six-month suspension with conditions is appropriate given factors and comparable cases.	No specific counterproposal; argues for leniency due to mitigating factors.	Six-month suspension, fully stayed on conditions, with six CLE hours in law-office management.

Cleveland Metro. Bar Assn. v. Zaffiro, 127 Ohio St.3d 5 (2010) (fully stayed discipline for multiple misconduct factors, including lack of cooperation)
Disciplinary Counsel v. Simon, 128 Ohio St.3d 359 (2011) (fully stayed one-year suspension with mitigating factors)
Stark Cty. Bar Assn. v. Buttacavoli, 96 Ohio St.3d 424 (2002) (aggravating/mitigating factors in sanction decision)