Disciplinary Counsel v. Maney.
152 Ohio St. 3d 201
| Ohio | 2017Background
- Thomas P. Maney Jr., an Ohio attorney admitted in 1983, was accused of neglecting a client’s collection defense and then fabricating documents and false statements during the ensuing disciplinary investigation.
- Maney failed to respond to discovery and a motion for summary judgment in his client Patrick Baker’s Franklin County Municipal Court case; the court entered judgment against Baker and notified Baker directly.
- During the disciplinary inquiry, Maney submitted five fabricated letters and falsely told disciplinary counsel he had mailed those letters and otherwise communicated with Baker; he later admitted fabricating the documents and lying.
- Maney testified he had put Baker’s file aside and forgot it, acknowledged he failed to communicate with Baker, and later disclosed a drinking problem and entered an OLAP contract after his deposition.
- The Board found violations of Prof.Cond.R. 1.3, 1.4(a)(3), 8.1(a), 8.4(c), and 8.4(d), and recommended a one-year suspension with six months stayed on conditions (continued OLAP compliance, no further misconduct, payment of costs).
- Maney objected, arguing denial of due process because the panel excluded an e-mail from his counselor and struck his counsel’s untimely posthearing brief; the Supreme Court overruled those objections and adopted the board’s recommendation.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Maney committed professional misconduct (neglect, failure to communicate, fabricating evidence, false statements in investigation) | Relator: Maney neglected client, failed to communicate, knowingly lied and fabricated documents during investigation, violating multiple professional-conduct rules | Maney: Acknowledged neglect and poor handling; sought to mitigate by citing substance-use disorder and later cooperation | Court: Adopted board’s findings — violations of Prof.Cond.R. 1.3, 1.4(a)(3), 8.1(a), 8.4(c), and 8.4(d) established |
| Appropriate sanction | Relator: Six-month suspension recommended | Maney: Argued mitigation (no prior record, OLAP participation, counselor email) should reduce sanction | Court: One-year suspension, six months stayed on conditions (OLAP compliance, no further misconduct, pay costs) |
| Exclusion of counselor e-mail (evidentiary/due-process claim) | Relator: Exclusion proper as unstipulated hearsay; Maney had opportunity to produce live testimony | Maney: E-mail was essential to establish substance-use disorder as independent mitigating factor; exclusion denied due process | Court: Exclusion proper — e-mail was hearsay, Maney had opportunity to depose or call counselor; due process satisfied |
| Striking of untimely posthearing brief | Relator: Enforcement of deadlines appropriate; Maney forfeited right to late filing | Maney: Striking brief prejudiced defense and deprived due process | Court: Striking proper; failure to follow procedural rules can result in forfeiture; no due-process violation |
Key Cases Cited
- Disciplinary Counsel v. Broeren, 115 Ohio St.3d 473, 2007-Ohio-5251, 875 N.E.2d 935 (fabrication of correspondence to conceal neglect; six-month suspension) (used as primary comparative sanction)
- Butler Cty. Bar Assn. v. Derivan, 81 Ohio St.3d 300, 691 N.E.2d 256 (attorney fabricated documents after missing statute of limitations; six-month suspension) (analogous misconduct)
- Warren Cty. Bar Assn. v. Vardiman, 146 Ohio St.3d 23, 2016-Ohio-352, 51 N.E.3d 587 (fraudulent filings despite diagnosed mental disorder; one-year suspension with six months stayed) (supports sanction level)
- Cleveland Metro. Bar Assn. v. Lemieux, 139 Ohio St.3d 320, 2014-Ohio-2127, 11 N.E.3d 1157 (affording some mitigation for chemical dependency with sustained OLAP compliance) (mitigation principle)
- Disciplinary Counsel v. Anthony, 138 Ohio St.3d 129, 2013-Ohio-5502, 4 N.E.3d 1006 (mitigation for diagnosed gambling disorder tied to OLAP and treatment) (mitigation principle)
- Cleveland Metro. Bar Assn. v. Fonda, 138 Ohio St.3d 399, 2014-Ohio-850, 7 N.E.3d 1164 (short period of treatment insufficient to establish sustained mitigation) (treatment-duration guidance)
- Goldfuss v. Davidson, 79 Ohio St.3d 116, 679 N.E.2d 1099 (failure to follow procedural rules can result in forfeiture) (procedural-sanction authority)