Disciplinary Counsel v. Motylinski
983 N.E.2d 1314
Ohio2012Background
- Motylinski, admitted in 2003, was charged in 2011 with failing to reasonably communicate and practicing law while inactive.
- The parties submitted a consent-to-discipline with a proposed six-month stayed suspension; the Board recommended adoption, but with a stay conditioned on a filing-fee reimbursement.
- On remand, the parties stipulated to facts and misconduct, agreeing to a six-month stayed suspension.
- In 2009, Bond, Schoeneck & King referred a Roth Industries collection matter to Motylinski; he filed a Cuyahoga County suit and received $125 for court costs.
- Motylinski moved to the Virgin Islands in 2009, became inactive in Ohio, failed to disclose inactive status to the firm, and continued to work on the case after becoming inactive, leading to dismissal of Roth’s case in December 2009.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Did Motylinski violate communication rules? | Motylinski failed to respond to firm and client requests. | Motylinski acted while seeking other employment; status changes affected communication. | Yes; violated 1.4(a)(4) and 1.4(b). |
| Did Motylinski practice while inactive in Ohio? | Continued representing Roth after becoming inactive. | Inactive status permitted limited practice; no intent to mislead. | Yes; violated 5.5(a). |
| Did Motylinski hold out as admitted in Ohio while inactive? | He maintained that he was admitted and practicing despite inactivity. | He was still admitted to practice in Ohio even when inactive; no misrepresentation. | No; 5.5(b)(2) charge dismissed. |
| What sanction is appropriate for the misconduct? | Six-month suspension appropriate, with potential conditions. | Agreement supports six-month stayed suspension with conditions. | Six-month stayed suspension conditioned on paying $125; costs taxed. |
Key Cases Cited
- Stark Cty. Bar Assn. v. Buttacavoli, 96 Ohio St.3d 424 (2002-Ohio-4743) (relevant aggravating/mitigating factors considered in sanctioning)
- Disciplinary Counsel v. Broeren, 115 Ohio St.3d 473 (2007-Ohio-5251) (weighing aggravating and mitigating factors in sanctions)