Disciplinary Counsel v. Oberholtzer
136 Ohio St. 3d 314
| Ohio | 2013Background
- Mattheuw W. Oberholtzer, admitted 1989, was charged with professional misconduct for neglecting two client matters (the Wards and Carmen Nantwi) and failing to cooperate with disciplinary investigations.
- Wards: retained Oberholtzer in Aug. 2009, paid $2,500 retainer (check negotiated but not deposited to trust account); documents signed and returned but not filed until April 2012; multiple missed communications; grievance filed Oct. 2010.
- Nantwi: retained Jan. 2011, paid $1,000 retainer; Oberholtzer failed to appear at a March 16 evidentiary hearing and did not respond to several inquiry letters; Nantwi later received a refund check just before the hearing.
- Relator (disciplinary counsel) sent multiple letters of inquiry; Oberholtzer was nonresponsive to several, prompting stipulations and findings that he violated duties to cooperate with disciplinary investigations.
- Board and parties stipulated multiple rule violations (lack of diligence, communication failures, trust-account rule, misconduct reflecting on fitness, and failure to cooperate); the board accepted most stipulations and recommended discipline.
- Aggravating factors: pattern of misconduct, multiple offenses, initial noncooperation. Mitigating factors: no prior record, no dishonest motive, later cooperation, serious personal and family medical issues affecting practice.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Did Oberholtzer violate duties of diligence and communication in representing the Wards and Nantwi? | Relator: neglected matters and failed to keep clients informed or act with reasonable diligence. | Oberholtzer: serious health and caregiving issues impaired his practice; he later remedied communications. | Court: Violations of Prof.Cond.R. 1.3 and 1.4 sustained. |
| Did Oberholtzer violate trust-account rule (Prof.Cond.R. 1.15(c)) in the Wards matter? | Relator: cashed retainer check but did not deposit it into client trust, establishing violation. | Panel initially found no evidence; Oberholtzer did not show money was deposited to trust later. | Court: Adopted board view — clear and convincing evidence of 1.15(c) violation. |
| Did Oberholtzer fail to cooperate with disciplinary investigation (Prof.Cond.R. 8.1(b), Gov.Bar R. V(4)(G))? | Relator: multiple unanswered inquiry letters and noncooperation hindered investigation. | Oberholtzer: eventually cooperated and stipulated to many facts; health issues impeded earlier responses. | Court: Found violations for failing to respond to relator’s letters; discipline appropriate. |
| Appropriate sanction for the misconduct? | Relator: suspension appropriate given multiple neglects and failure to cooperate; recommended monitored stay. | Oberholtzer: mitigation (health, no prior record, remorse) supports stayed suspension with monitoring and CLE. | Court: 12-month suspension, stayed on conditions — 12-month monitored probation, 3-hour CLE on law-office management, and no further misconduct; stay will be lifted on noncompliance. |
Key Cases Cited
- Stark Cty. Bar Assn. v. Buttacavoli, 96 Ohio St.3d 424 (discussing factors for attorney discipline)
- Disciplinary Counsel v. Broeren, 115 Ohio St.3d 473 (use of BCGD Proc.Reg. 10(B) factors and aggravation/mitigation)
- Disciplinary Counsel v. Shuler, 129 Ohio St.3d 509 (six-month stayed suspension for neglect and failure to respond)
- Cleveland Bar Assn. v. Norton, 116 Ohio St.3d 226 (stayed suspension for client neglect and noncooperation)
- Allen Cty. Bar Assn. v. Brown, 124 Ohio St.3d 530 (12-month stayed suspension for similar neglect)
- Toledo Bar Assn. v. Farah, 125 Ohio St.3d 455 (12-month stayed suspension in client-neglect contexts)