Erie-Huron Grievance Committee v. Stoll
127 Ohio St. 3d 290
| Ohio | 2010Background
- Stoll, an Ohio attorney admitted in 1994, faced a 22-count complaint filed in Sept. 2009 by the Erie-Huron Grievance Committee.
- Counts 2–21 arise from neglecting 21 clients' probate/guardianship matters in Huron County, with repeated court requests to file never fulfilled.
- Count 22 involves failure to file in a bankruptcy matter after a settlement entry was not submitted for approval, resulting in dismissal and prejudice to the client.
- The panel and board found violations of DR 6-101(A)(3) for neglect and Prof.Cond.R. 1.3 in the guardianship matter (count 1) as well as continuing violations in counts 2–22.
- Mitigating and aggravating factors were considered; aggravating factors included a decade-long pattern and multiple offenses; mitigators included lack of prior discipline, cooperation, and reputation.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Did Stoll's conduct violate ethical duties due to neglect? | Relator asserts repeated neglect violated DR 6-101(A)(3) and Prof.Cond.R. 1.3. | Stoll admitted conduct but argued mitigating factors and health issues might justify leniency. | Yes, violations established; neglect found in counts 2–21 and 22; specific duty to file was breached. |
| Is suspension the appropriate sanction for the misconduct? | Relator and board recommended a two-year suspension with one year stayed to protect the public and ensure competence. | Stoll urged staying the entire two years based on mitigation evidence. | Two-year suspension with one year stayed, subject to conditions and monitoring. |
| Should health-related mitigation justify a stay or conditional reinstatement? | Mitigation evidence supports partial suspension with monitoring to protect the public. | Respondent claimed depression/anxiety contributed to neglect; sought broader mitigation. | Court accepted board's mitigation framework, denying full stay; reinstatement conditioned on medical proof and OLAP compliance with two-year probation. |
| What conditions should accompany reinstatement? | Reinstatement should require proof of competency and continued OLAP participation plus monitoring. | Stoll seeks reinstatement under existing OLAP obligations and monitoring considerations. | Reinstatement conditioned on medical proof of ability to practice, continued OLAP compliance, and a two-year monitor-supervised probation. |
Key Cases Cited
- Disciplinary Counsel v. Bowman, 110 Ohio St.3d 480 (2006-Ohio-4333) (OLAP participation supports suspension with conditions when mental illness is involved)
- Columbus Bar Assn. v. Ellis, 120 Ohio St.3d 89 (2008-Ohio-5278) (sanctions can include conditional reinstatement to protect the public)