Toledo Bar Association v. Harvey
24 N.E.3d 1106
Ohio2014Background
- Harvey, admitted in 2005, faced a second disciplinary matter after a 2012 stayed suspension and probation.
- Toledo Bar Association filed a five-count second amended complaint in 2013 alleging multiple rules violations arising from Harvey’s representation of four clients.
- The Board panel found clear and convincing evidence of misconduct across Counts One–Five and recommended a two-year suspension with six months stayed.
- The Supreme Court adopted the panel’s factual findings and misconduct conclusions, but imposed a two-year suspension with six months stayed and restitution conditions.
- Harvey challenged the sanction; the Court noted aggravating factors and symptomatic misconduct, and ultimately imposed the recommended sanction with restitution tied to prior orders.
- Costs of proceedings were taxed to Harvey; there were separate dissents proposing no stay to the suspension.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Harvey violated communications and competence rules | Harvey lacked knowledge and failed to consult/inform Hassall; failed to competently represent | Harvey contends he did not breach applicable duties or that evidence is insufficient | Yes; violations proven and sanction upheld |
| Whether Harvey failed to pay or cooperate in the Degens matter | Harvey ignored fee arbitration award and municipal court judgment | Harvey disputed personal liability and lacked notice | Yes; 8.4(d) violation established and sanction upheld |
| Whether Harvey mishandled DeBagio’s bankruptcy fee/refund and funds | Harvey did not timely refund and breached trust/accounting duties | Dispute over amount/not timely refund; some claims dismissed | Yes; multiple Rule violations proven and sanction upheld |
| Whether Harvey violated cooperation with investigation and client-communication rules | Harvey refused to provide records and information | No admission of wrongdoing in some aspects; argued partial cooperation | Yes; Gov.Bar R. V(4)(G) and 1.15/8.1 violations established; sanction upheld |
Key Cases Cited
- Stark Cty. Bar Assn. v. Buttacavoli, 96 Ohio St.3d 424 (2002-Ohio-4743) (relevant aggravating factors in sanctions)
- Cincinnati Bar Assn. v. Dearfield, 130 Ohio St.3d 363 (2011-Ohio-5295) (one-year suspension, all stayed, similar misconduct)
- Stark Cty. Bar Assn. v. Marosan, 106 Ohio St.3d 430 (2005-Ohio-5412) (two-year suspension with stayed term for multiple offenses)
- Cleveland Metro Bar Assn. v. Gresley, 127 Ohio St.3d 430 (2010-Ohio-6208) (two-year suspension with six months stayed)
- Disciplinary Counsel v. McCord, 96 Ohio St.3d 21 (2002-Ohio-2587) (all-stayed suspension for similar misconduct)
- Disciplinary Counsel v. McShane, 121 Ohio St.3d 169 (2009-Ohio-746) (two-year suspension, all stayed, similar)
- Medina Cty. Bar Assn. v. Cameron, 130 Ohio St.3d 299 (2011-Ohio-5200) (one-year suspension, all stayed; sanctions spectrum)
- Toledo Bar Assn. v. Savage, 74 Ohio St.3d 183 (1995-Ohio-) (public reprimand; stayed options in sanctions)
- Richland Cty. Bar Assn. v. Bourdeau, 109 Ohio St.3d 158 (2006-Ohio-2039) (public reprimand with stayed options)