Disciplinary Counsel v. Schnittke., 152 Ohio St. 3d 152

Steven P. Schnittke, admitted 1975, was appointed appellate counsel in three criminal appeals (2005, 2007, 2012) and failed to file appellate briefs, resulting in dismissals for want of prosecution.
In the 2005 matter he reviewed the sentencing transcript and told the client there was no basis for appeal but did no further work; in 2007 he reviewed the file and sent letters but took no further action; in 2012 he failed to respond to client letters and performed no work.
One client reopened his appeal and filed a pro se brief; Schnittke later sent a strategy letter but did not perform promised additional research or assistance.
Relator charged violations under the Disciplinary Rules and Rules of Professional Conduct; parties stipulated to misconduct, aggravating and mitigating factors, and jointly recommended a six-month suspension stayed in full.
A board panel initially issued a public reprimand; this court remanded for consideration of a more severe sanction. On remand, the board and court adopted findings of violations and recommended a six-month suspension, all stayed on condition of no further misconduct.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether Schnittke neglected entrusted legal matters by failing to file appellate briefs	Schnittke’s failures to prosecute three appeals constitute neglect and rule violations	Failures resulted from heavy workload/office winding down and not dishonest motive	Court held his conduct violated DR 6-101(A)(3) and Prof.Cond.R. 1.3, 1.4(a)(3), 1.4(a)(4), and 8.4(d)
Whether Schnittke failed to keep clients reasonably informed and respond to requests for information	Relator: he failed to communicate and comply with client requests, harming clients	Schnittke: maintained some communication (letters) and proffered mitigation (C.E., staff hired)	Court held violations of communication rules (1.4(a)(3), 1.4(a)(4))
Appropriate sanction for multiple offenses and aggravating factors	Relator: suspension is appropriate given pattern, multiple clients, and harm	Schnittke: mitigating factors (no prior discipline, cooperation, character, no monetary gain) support stayed suspension	Court imposed six-month suspension, fully stayed on condition of no further misconduct
Procedural posture after initial disposition and remand	Relator sought more severe sanction after panel’s reprimand	Schnittke relied on stipulated mitigation and recommended stayed suspension	On remand, court accepted board’s recommendation of six-month stayed suspension

Disciplinary Counsel v. Schnittke, 147 Ohio St.3d 1461 (court remand for consideration of more severe sanction)
Dayton Bar Assn. v. Sebree, 96 Ohio St.3d 50 (case supporting six-month fully stayed suspension for similar pattern of neglect and communication failures)
Disciplinary Counsel v. Harp, 91 Ohio St.3d 385 (similar precedent imposing six-month stayed suspension with probation for prolonged failures to prosecute and communicate)