Medina County Bar Ass'n v. Malynn
965 N.E.2d 299
Ohio2012Background
- Malynn, an Ohio attorney admitted in 1996, faced multiple disciplinary complaints stemming from conduct before and after February 1, 2007, the effective date of the Rules of Professional Conduct.
- Relator Medina County Bar Association filed a February 2009 complaint alleging misappropriation of client funds, failure to maintain a client trust account, dishonesty, and failure to cooperate; default motions were pursued for non-response.
- The Board on Grievances and Discipline held a hearing in June 2011; the panel’s findings formed the basis for the Board’s recommendation.
- Relator later amended the complaint to add counts alleging neglect, lack of communication, and other misconduct across several client matters (Counts 2–5).
- The Board concluded Malynn engaged in misconduct across multiple counts, including neglect, communication failures, dishonesty, and failure to cooperate in investigations.
- This Court suspended Malynn for two years, with six months stayed, and conditioned reinstatement on mental-health evaluation and treatment, plus proof of competency to practice.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Preservation of client funds identity | Relator proved misappropriation/identity problems under DR 9-102 and 1.15. | Evidence pre/post 2007 makes the rule applicable; not all findings require dishonesty under 8.4(C). | Violations proved; both DR 9-102 and 1.15 established, with 1.15 treated as a single violation. |
| Neglect and communication regarding client matters | Malynn neglected multiple matters and failed to inform/advise clients adequately. | Disciplinary record insufficient to prove competent representation (1.1) or other specific duties. | Found violations of 1.3, 1.4, and related rules; some counts (1.1) dismissed for insufficiency. |
| Cooperation in disciplinary investigations | Malynn failed to cooperate with investigations and delayed responses. | He eventually cooperated in later stages; some contact occurred. | Gov.Bar R. V(4)(G) violation established; failure to cooperate upheld. |
| Handling of other matters (Counts Four and Five) and related violations | Misconduct in handling Estes, EHS, and Constantino matters and related ethics violations proven. | Some asserted violations not charged or proven; arguments limited. | Counts Four and Five misconduct sustained for failure to act with reasonable diligence; some violations not charged were not addressed. |
| Sanction for misconduct | Two-year suspension with significant non-stayed portion is appropriate. | Six-month stay or lesser sanction could be warranted; mental-health factors argued. | Two-year suspension with six months stayed determined appropriate; conditioned on no further misconduct and mental-health evaluation for reinstatement. |
Key Cases Cited
- Akron Bar Assn. v. Dismuke, 128 Ohio St.3d 408 (2011-Ohio-1444) (addressed similar multiple-misconduct disciplinary sanctions with stayed term)
- Disciplinary Counsel v. Broeren, 115 Ohio St.3d 473 (2007-Ohio-5251) (aggravating and mitigating factors in sanctions)
- Disciplinary Counsel v. Simecek, 83 Ohio St.3d 320 (1998-Ohio-1998) (due process limits on addressing uncharged misconduct)