Disciplinary Counsel v. Lehmkuhl, 997 N.E.2d 532

In December 2009 Lehmkuhl filed a defamation suit naming Joseph and Amanda Erb; the Erbs later advised that Amanda was Joseph’s daughter (not his wife) and not involved.
The Erbs moved for summary judgment and sanctions in March 2010; Lehmkuhl did not dismiss Amanda until May 4, 2010, and sought leave to amend on May 6, 2010.
Joseph Erb filed a grievance in March 2010; relator initially dismissed it but Erb refiled in April 2011 after the underlying litigation concluded.
Disciplinary counsel sent inquiry letters and subpoenaed Lehmkuhl for a deposition; Lehmkuhl failed to respond to letters and missed the deposition (he cites family bereavement and a calendar oversight).
Parties stipulated that Lehmkuhl violated Prof.Cond.R. 3.1 (bringing a proceeding unsupported by law) and Gov.Bar R. V(4)(G) (failure to assist in a disciplinary investigation); the board deleted findings under Prof.Cond.R. 8.4(d) and (h).
The board and parties agreed a public reprimand was appropriate; the Supreme Court adopted the findings and imposed a public reprimand and costs.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Filing defamation suit without adequate investigation — violation of Prof.Cond.R. 3.1	Lehmkuhl named a nonparty (Amanda Erb) and failed to verify identity before suit or timely amend after learning the error.	He relied on information from his wife and clients, and the misidentification was inadvertent.	Violated Prof.Cond.R. 3.1; board and court adopted that finding.
Failing to cooperate with disciplinary inquiry — violation of Gov.Bar R. V(4)(G) and Prof.Cond.R. 8.4(h)	Lehmkuhl did not answer inquiry letters and failed to appear for a deposition after being subpoenaed.	He cited family bereavement (father-in-law’s death) and a calendaring mistake for the missed deposition.	Violated Gov.Bar R. V(4)(G); findings under Prof.Cond.R. 8.4(h) were deleted.
Appropriate sanction	Disciplinary counsel recommended a public reprimand given the conduct and precedent.	Lehmkuhl acknowledged mistakes, accepted responsibility, has no prior discipline, and implemented office changes.	Public reprimand (adopted by board and court).

Disciplinary Counsel v. Buttacavoli, 96 Ohio St.3d 424 (2002) (factors considered when imposing sanctions for misconduct)
Akron Bar Assn. v. Fink, 131 Ohio St.3d 34 (2011) (public reprimand for failing to cooperate in disciplinary process)
Disciplinary Counsel v. Gallo, 131 Ohio St.3d 309 (2012) (public reprimand for filing claims without reasonable verification of a party’s identity)
Disciplinary Counsel v. Broeren, 115 Ohio St.3d 473 (2007) (use of aggravating and mitigating factors in sanctioning)