Lorain County Bar Ass'n v. Godles
128 Ohio St. 3d 279
| Ohio | 2010Background
- Relator Lorain County Bar Association filed a complaint against respondent Michael J. Godles for misconduct in a personal-injury matter and for failing to inform the client that respondent did not maintain professional-liability insurance.
- The Board found violations of Prof.Cond.R. 1.4(a)(1)-(5), 1.4(b), and 1.4(c) and DR 1-104(A) for failing to communicate and for failing to disclose lack of insurance; the panel recommended a six-month suspension, which the board reduced to a public reprimand.
- Facts show the August 2006 client hired respondent to pursue a 2004 injury claim; respondent filed suit near the statute's end and then did little discovery or progress on the case.
- Respondent did not timely respond to discovery; he voluntarily dismissed the Ashland County case in April 2007, giving the client one year to refile, but the case was not refiled before the deadline.
- The client testified he had no recollection of being told he would be discharged or of receiving a February 2008 letter; respondent claimed prior discussions covered this, but credibility was conflicted.
- Throughout, communications were only by telephone; respondent did not provide the client with key documents or medical records, and he failed to notify the client of the lack of malpractice insurance.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Did respondent violate communication and fee-related rules? | Godles violated 1.4(a)(1)-(5) and 1.4(b) by failing to keep the client adequately informed and consulted. | Godles contends he communicated and did what was necessary; the client awareness issue is disputed. | Yes; violations of 1.4(a)(1)-(5) and 1.4(b) were established. |
| Did respondent violate 1.4(c) and DR 1-104(A) by not informing about lack of insurance? | Relator asserts respondent failed to disclose lack of malpractice insurance. | Godles contends there was no duty or awareness to disclose beyond standard communications. | Yes; DR 1-104(A) and 1.4(c) violated. |
| Were other alleged violations (1.2(a), 1.3, 1.16(d)) proven? | Relator argued additional rule violations based on conduct of representation and withdrawal. | Godles challenged the sufficiency of evidence for those violations. | No; those violations were not proven by clear and convincing evidence. |
| What sanction is appropriate given the conduct and factors? | Relator sought stricter discipline given misconduct. | Godles emphasized no prior discipline and mitigating factors. | Public reprimand appropriate; sanctions weighed with mitigating and aggravating factors. |
Key Cases Cited
- Stark Cty. Bar Assn. v. Buttacavoli, 96 Ohio St.3d 424 (Ohio 2002) (aggravating/mitigating factors in sanctions)
- Disciplinary Couns. v. Broeren, 115 Ohio St.3d 473 (Ohio 2007) (consideration of aggravating/mitigating factors in sanctions)
- Disciplinary Counsel v. McCord, 121 Ohio St.3d 497 (Ohio 2009) (lawyer sanctions and implications of separate proceedings)
- Cuyahoga Cty. Bar Assn. v. Johnson, 123 Ohio St.3d 65 (Ohio 2009) (public reprimand for isolated misconduct and lack of insurance notice)