Mahoning County Bar Association v. Mickens.
111 N.E.3d 1125
Ohio2018Background
- Charles Gary Mickens, admitted 1991, was previously publicly reprimanded in 2016 for unrelated probate negligence and communication failures.
- Troy Carlton retained Mickens in December 2003 to pursue an insurance claim after a structure fire, paid $800 total, and provided insurance paperwork.
- Mickens failed to communicate with Carlton, did not pursue the claim or file suit, did not return the funds, and Carlton never sought other counsel.
- Mickens admitted he owed Carlton $800 and that he did not maintain professional-liability insurance during the representation; he did not recall informing Carlton of that fact.
- The Mahoning County Bar Association charged violations of Prof.Cond.R. 1.3 and 1.4(a)(2)–(4) and 1.4(c); parties entered a consent-to-discipline agreement.
- Aggravating factors: prior discipline and selfish motive. Mitigating factors: full disclosure, cooperation, good character. The board recommended a six-month suspension, stayed on conditions including restitution, CLE, monitored probation, and no further misconduct.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Did Mickens violate professional-conduct rules by neglecting the matter and failing to communicate? | Mickens neglected the claim and failed to keep Carlton reasonably informed or respond to requests. | Mickens admitted the facts; no contrary defense asserted. | Court found violations of Prof.Cond.R. 1.3 and 1.4(a)(2)–(4), 1.4(c). |
| Was restitution to the client required? | Carlton paid $800 and Mickens conceded he owes that amount. | No dispute; Mickens agreed to repay. | Court ordered restitution of $800 within 60 days as a condition of a stayed suspension. |
| What disciplinary sanction is appropriate for the misconduct and prior record? | Relator recommended a conditionally stayed six-month suspension consistent with similar cases. | Mickens consented to the agreement proposing the stayed suspension with conditions. | Court adopted the consent agreement: six-month suspension stayed on conditions. |
| Are the proposed stay conditions (CLE, monitored probation, no further misconduct) appropriate? | Conditions will protect the public and promote remediation of practice deficiencies. | Mickens agreed to complete CLE, probation, and refrain from further misconduct. | Court imposed six hours CLE in law-office management, one year monitored probation, and standard condition that failure to comply lifts the stay. |
Key Cases Cited
- Columbus Bar Assn. v. Kluesener, 150 Ohio St.3d 322, 2017-Ohio-4417, 81 N.E.3d 457 (adopted conditionally stayed six-month suspension for similar neglect and communication failures)
- Disciplinary Counsel v. Simon, 146 Ohio St.3d 44, 2016-Ohio-535, 51 N.E.3d 605 (imposed conditionally stayed six-month suspension for neglect, communication failures, and failure to notify about lack of malpractice insurance)
- Disciplinary Counsel v. Mickens, 151 Ohio St.3d 302, 2016-Ohio-8022, 88 N.E.3d 920 (prior public reprimand for probate neglect and communication failures)
- Disciplinary Counsel v. Freeman, 119 Ohio St.3d 330, 2008-Ohio-3836, 894 N.E.2d 31 (continuing violation rule: conduct spanning pre- and post-effective dates treated as single continuing violation)