Disciplinary Counsel v. Marshall
142 Ohio St. 3d 1
| Ohio | 2014Background
- Joy Lenore Marshall, admitted in Ohio in 2002, represented Bessie Tyus in a personal-injury matter after former counsel (Campbell/Dickson) were discharged; Marshall negotiated a $150,000 settlement shortly after retention.
- Former counsel filed a charging lien and later sought enforcement, claiming $50,443.70 based on quantum meruit and costs; the trial court retained jurisdiction over postjudgment motions.
- Judge Russo temporarily entrusted the settlement check to Marshall and ordered her to hold $65,000 pending resolution of the fee dispute; Marshall nonetheless disbursed substantial funds to the client and to herself.
- Marshall repeatedly sought writs of prohibition, filed disqualification affidavits alleging race/gender bias by Judge Russo, and was late for and then held in contempt at postjudgment hearings; she gave incomplete or misleading answers about the funds and failed to produce trust-account records as ordered.
- The Board found Marshall violated rules prohibiting dishonesty, conduct prejudicial to the administration of justice, false statements about a judge, and related professional-conduct rules; it recommended a two-year suspension with one year stayed on conditions (including restitution to former counsel).
- The Supreme Court of Ohio adopted the board’s findings, dismissed two fee/conflict-related charges, and suspended Marshall for two years with the second year stayed conditioned on no further misconduct and restitution to former counsel in an amount to be determined by the trial court.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Disciplinary Counsel) | Defendant's Argument (Marshall) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Misappropriation / dishonesty: distribution of settlement contrary to court order and misleading testimony | Marshall distributed funds in violation of court orders and made false/incomplete statements to the judge about fees and the disposition of funds | Marshall insisted she believed she was entitled to her contingent fee once former counsel withdrew the motion and that her statements were not misleading | Held: Clear-and-convincing evidence Marshall violated rules prohibiting dishonesty (DR 1-102(A)(4)); distribution and false statements sustained |
| False statements about judge’s integrity (allegations of racial/gender bias) | Allegations were unfounded, unreasonable, and unnecessarily attacked judicial integrity | Marshall claimed rulings demonstrated race/gender bias and she had a right to raise disqualification/bias issues | Held: Marshall’s race/gender-bias allegations lacked a reasonable factual basis; violated Prof.Cond.R. 8.2(a), 8.4(d), 8.4(h) |
| Contempt, failure to produce records, tardiness — conduct prejudicial to administration of justice | Marshall failed to appear timely for contempt hearing, disobeyed orders to produce trust-account records, and obstructed proceedings | Marshall argued she sought to protect due-process rights and zealously represent her client | Held: Violations of DR 1-102(A)(5) & (6) and Prof.Cond.R. 8.4(d),(h) proven by clear and convincing evidence |
| Fee/excessive-fee and conflict-of-interest charges (DR 2-106(A); DR 5-101(A)(1)) | Alleged illegal/excessive fees and failure to disclose conflicts when taking the case and settling | Marshall argued fee and disclosure practices were proper under precedent and contingency agreement | Held: Board and Court dismissed these charges (costs/expenses not within DR 2-106(A); no clear proof of required conflict disclosure violation) |
Key Cases Cited
- Cross v. Ledford, 161 Ohio St. 469 (definition of "clear and convincing" evidence)
- Fox & Assocs. Co., L.P.A. v. Purdon, 44 Ohio St.3d 69 (discharged attorney may recover reasonable value via quantum meruit)
- Disciplinary Counsel v. Gardner, 99 Ohio St.3d 416 (standard for alleging judicial impropriety; objective reasonableness)
- Disciplinary Counsel v. Simon-Seymour, 131 Ohio St.3d 161 (two-year suspension framework for misappropriation and false statements)
- Disciplinary Counsel v. Stafford, 131 Ohio St.3d 385 (12-month actual suspension for misleading court and false judicial-impropriety claims)
- Disciplinary Counsel v. Frost, 122 Ohio St.3d 219 (indefinite suspension for pervasive unfounded accusations against judges and officials)
- Norwood v. McDonald, 142 Ohio St. 299 (res judicata principles regarding final judgments)
- Goodson v. McDonough Power Equip., Inc., 2 Ohio St.3d 193 (right to a fair opportunity to be heard in res judicata analysis)