Erie-Huron Counties Joint Certified Grievance Committee v. Derby
131 Ohio St. 3d 144
| Ohio | 2012Background
- Derby, an Ohio attorney admitted in 1991, faced disciplinary charges for neglecting eight bankruptcy matters, poor communication, and failing to inform clients about lack of malpractice insurance.
- Evidence included stipulations, client testimony, OLAP testimony, and Derby’s admission of misconduct.
- Derby’s personal hardships (wife’s illness and death, foreclosure) coincided with a pattern of negligent practice from late 2007 to 2009 and treatment for alcohol dependence and adjustment disorder.
- Eight bankruptcy matters were mishandled: four filings were untimely, four dismissed for incomplete documentation, and two orders of disgorgement by bankruptcy court.
- Derby did not notify clients in writing that he lacked malpractice insurance; several clients suffered stress from creditor actions and potential wage garnishments.
- Board recommended an 18-month suspension with 12 months stayed; the case proceeded to the court for final sanction considerations.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Derby violated RPC 1.3, 1.4(a)(3), 1.4(a)(4), and 1.4(c). | Derby’s neglect and poor communication violated duty to diligently represent and inform clients. | Derby contends mitigating factors and lack of prior discipline; seeks more lenient treatment. | Yes, violations found; court adopts board findings of misconduct. |
| Appropriate sanction given a pattern of misconduct and aggravating/mitigating factors. | Disciplinary board’s proposed sanction is appropriate to protect the public. | Derby argues for lesser punishment given cooperation and restitution efforts. | Two-year suspension with final 18 months stayed, conditioned on OLAP, restitution, and treatment, followed by two years of monitored probation. |
| Whether conditioning reinstatement on psychiatrist certification and ongoing monitoring is proper. | Conditions ensure capability to practice ethically post-reinstatement. | Dreamed conditions are excessive or burdensome. | Yes, reinstatement conditioned on psychiatry certification and ongoing monitor supervision. |
Key Cases Cited
- Erie-Huron Grievance Comm. v. Stoll, 127 Ohio St.3d 290 (2010-Ohio-5985) (aggravating pattern; impact on sanction choice)
- Dayton Bar Assn. v. Hunt, 127 Ohio St.3d 390 (2010-Ohio-6148) (limited neglect leads to lighter sanction)
- Disciplinary Counsel v. Clark, 78 Ohio St.3d 302 (1997-Ohio-) (repetitive misconduct justifies greater sanction)
- Erie-Huron Counties Joint Certified Grievance Comm. v. Derby, 131 Ohio St.3d 144 (2012-Ohio-78) (two-year suspension with stayed period and conditions)
- Stark Cty. Bar Assn. v. Buttacavoli, 96 Ohio St.3d 424 (2002-Ohio-4743) (factors for sanctions in professional conduct cases)
- Disciplinary Counsel v. Broeren, 115 Ohio St.3d 473 (2007-Ohio-5251) (BCGD 10(B) factors in determining discipline)