Disciplinary Counsel v. Shuler
129 Ohio St. 3d 509
| Ohio | 2011Background
- Disciplinary Counsel filed a two-count amended complaint in Nov. 2010 alleging misconduct and Rules violations.
- Respondent Gordon Shuler stipulated to facts and submitted supporting materials, including a psychological evaluation and character letters.
- In April 2008, Dr. Fredric Gohl retained Shuler for five real estate transactions, paying a $10,000 retainer later withdrawn by Shuler from trust.
- Shuler terminated communication with Gohl by February 2009 and did not respond to post-retainer inquiries or to disciplinary investigations.
- Shuler later refunded remaining retainer funds and disclosed treatment for clinical depression; he admitted neglecting Gohl's matter.
- In 2009–2010, Shuler also neglected a separate matter for client Brett Ayer, failing to respond to inquiries from the bar.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Did Shuler violate professional conduct rules in Gohl matter? | Gohl's retainer, withdrawals, and lack of communication breached duties. | No additional context provided; defense emphasizes treatment and remediation. | Yes; violations found of 1.3, 1.4(A)(2)-(4), 1.15(d), 8.1, and 8.4(h). |
| Did Shuler violate professional conduct rules in Ayer matter? | Shuler neglected the claim and failed to respond to inquiries. | Reason for neglect attributed to depression and ongoing treatment. | Yes; violations found of 1.3, 1.4(A)(2)-(4), 8.1, and 8.4(h). |
| Is the proposed sanction of a six-month suspension stayed on OLAP completion appropriate? | Six-month stayed suspension aligns with neglect without dishonest motive. | OLAP contract is sufficient to monitor progress and prevent recurrence. | Yes; six-month suspension stayed conditioned on completing a three-year OLAP contract. |
| Should costs be imposed and what are the stay conditions if misconduct recurs? | Costs taxed to respondent; stay may lift upon noncompliance. | Respondent must comply with OLAP and abstain from further misconduct. | Costs taxed; stay lifted and full six-month suspension imposed if conditions are breached. |
Key Cases Cited
- Cuyahoga Cty. Bar Assn. v. Rutherford, 112 Ohio St.3d 159 (2006-Ohio-6526) (six-month suspension for neglect with OLAP contract)
- Disciplinary Counsel v. Chambers, 125 Ohio St.3d 414 (2010-Ohio-1809) (leniency for neglect with OLAP monitoring)