Disciplinary Counsel v. Talikka
135 Ohio St. 3d 323
| Ohio | 2013Background
- Talikka, a 1968 Ohio-licensed attorney, faced an amended complaint alleging misconduct in eight client matters.
- Parties stipulate 38 violations of the Rules of Professional Conduct: three 1.3 violations, fiduciary/financial breaches, closing statements, misappropriation, and ethics violations.
- Board and panel findings: two-year suspension with conditions versus indefinite suspension and restitution requirements; panel/board recommended indefinite suspension with restitution as a condition.
- Majority adopts parties’ stipulations and sanctions; Talikka objects and Relator concurs; the court suspends Talikka for two years with the second year stayed on specified conditions.
- Court notes Talikka’s lack of prior disciplinary history, health issues, and participation in counseling, and approves restitution and interest obligations as part of the stay.
- Dissent argues for an indefinite suspension due to breadth and vulnerability of victims, and criticizes the majority’s treatment of Folwell and other authorities.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether a two-year suspension with a stay is adequate sanction | Talikka/objecting parties: Board's indefinite sanction is excessive; two-year stay suffices | Talikka and Relator: two-year suspension with conditions adequately protects the public | Yes; two-year suspension with second year stayed is appropriate |
| Whether restitution/interest conditions should govern reinstatement | Board/panel: restitution and interest must be paid; stay conditioned on payment | Talikka: terms should be sufficient to protect clients without indefinite suspension | Restitution and interest required; conditions tied to reinstatement |
| Whether the Board’s recommended indefinite suspension should be adopted | Board recommended indefinite suspension due to extensive harm | Talikka/Relator oppose; majority disagrees | No; sanction imposed is two years with conditions; not indefiniteSuspension |
Key Cases Cited
- Folwell v. Disciplinary Counsel, 129 Ohio St.3d 297 (2011-Ohio-3181) (pattern of misconduct; second-year stay sanction supported; distinguishable from current case)
- Claflin v. Disciplinary Counsel, 107 Ohio St.3d 31 (2005-Ohio-5827) (disbarment presumptive for misappropriation; factors may temper)
- Lockshin v. Cleveland Metro. Bar Assn., 125 Ohio St.3d 529 (2010-Ohio-2207) (public protection as primary purpose of discipline)
- Disciplinary Counsel v. Agopian, 112 Ohio St.3d 103 (2006-Ohio-6510) (disciplinary framework; aggravating/mitigating factors)
- Disciplinary Counsel v. Freeman, 106 Ohio St.3d 334 (2005-Ohio-5142) (protect the public; vulnerability considerations)
- Toledo Bar Assn. v. Scott, 129 Ohio St.3d 479 (2011-Ohio-4185) (acknowledgment of wrongfulness not controlling when victimized vulnerable clients)
- Weaver v. Ohio State Bar Assn., 41 Ohio St.2d 97 (1975-Ohio-) (public protection and fitness to practice as core inquiry)