Toledo Bar Assn. v. Woodley
132 Ohio St. 3d 120
| Ohio | 2012Background
- Woodley was indefinitely suspended for prior registration suspension and misconduct; the suspension remained in effect at the time of the disciplinary proceedings.
- Toledo Bar Association filed a four-count complaint alleging neglect, failure to communicate, failure to refund unearned fees, practicing while suspended, and failure to respond to investigations.
- Varnes matter: retainer of $1,250; no bankruptcy filing was made, calls not returned, and no refund of unearned fees.
- Garcia matter: probate representation without court-approved fees, lack of communication, and Garcia removed from estate; Woodley continued representation after suspension.
- Chavez matter: initial $510 paid, $649 due; no petition filed, Chavez switched counsel, and Woodley billed for remaining fees while not returning unearned funds.
- Relator proved Woodley failed to respond to disciplinary demands, constituting a violation of ethical rules and justifying sanctions.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Did Woodley’s neglect and poor communication violate rules? | Woodley violated 1.3, 1.4(a)(2) by neglect and poor client communication. | Woodley contends minimal contact failures were not proven as misconduct could be justified by discretion. | Yes; violations established against Woodley on neglect and communication. |
| Did Woodley’s handling of the Varnes matter breach refund and trust obligations? | Retainer not refunded; funds improperly retained without earned fee. | No clear evidence of illegal or excessive fee charged. | Violation of 1.16(e) and related duties; refund required; misconduct proven. |
| Did Woodley’s conduct in Garcia matter violate fiduciary and disciplinary rules? | Failure to communicate and manage fees; continued representation post-suspension. | Some fee-related allegations not proven by clear and convincing evidence. | Violations found for 1.3, 1.4(a)(2), 1.16(e), 5.5, 8.4(h); 1.15 not proven. |
| Did Woodley’s Chavez matter support discipline for misrepresentation of fees and failure to return funds? | Unfiled petition and improper billing; failed to return unearned funds. | Some fee claims not conclusively proven. | Violations found for 1.3, 1.4(a)(2), 1.16(e), 8.4(h); 1.5 and 1.15 not proven. |
| Was Woodley’s nonresponse to disciplinary investigations sanctionable? | Woodley knowingly failed to respond to information requests. | Any response delay was not material to the disciplinary process. | Yes; 8.1(b) violation proven. |
Key Cases Cited
- Columbus Bar Assn. v. Harris, 108 Ohio St.3d 543 (2006-Ohio-1715) (negligence and noncooperation can warrant indefinite suspension)
- Cleveland Bar Assn. v. Judge, 94 Ohio St.3d 331 (2002) (disciplinary sanctions for professional misconduct; failure to cooperate)
- Akron Bar Assn. v. Snyder, 87 Ohio St.3d 211 (1999) (suspension for continued practice after suspension and neglect)
- Disciplinary Counsel v. Higgins, 117 Ohio St.3d 473 (2008-Ohio-1509) (indefinite suspension for misconduct and noncooperation)
- Toledo Bar Assn. v. Crandall, 98 Ohio St.3d 444 (2003-Ohio-1637) (indefinite suspension for neglect and failure to cooperate)
- Akron Bar Assn. v. Barron, 85 Ohio St.3d 167 (1999) (serious misconduct and sanction adequacy)
- Stark County Bar Assn. v. Buttacavoli, 96 Ohio St.3d 424 (2002-Ohio-4743) (aggravating factors in discipline and sanctions)
- Disciplinary Counsel v. Broeren, 115 Ohio St.3d 473 (2007-Ohio-5251) (aggravatings and mitigating factors in sanctions)