AKRON BAR ASSOCIATION v. DELOACH.
No. 2011-0353
Supreme Court of Ohio
Submitted April 19, 2011-Decided August 31, 2011.
130 Ohio St.3d 153, 2011-Ohio-4201
{11} Respondent, Jana Bassinger DeLoach of Akron, Ohio, Attorney Registration No. 0071743, was admitted to the practice of law in Ohio in November 1999. On February 8, 2010, a two-count formal complaint was filed against respondent by the Akron Bar Association. The first count alleged a violation of
{12} A panel of the Board of Commissioners on Grievances and Discipline heard the case and, based on the parties’ stipulations and other evidence, dismissed Count One and that part of Count Two that alleged a violation of
{13} The board adopted the findings of fact, conclusions of law, and recommendation of the panel that respondent be suspended from the practice of law for a period of six months, with the entire six months stayed and costs taxed to respondent. In addition, the board recommended two years of monitored probation. We accept the board‘s findings of fact, conclusions of law, and recommended sanction.
{14} The stipulated facts establish that on September 30, 2008, respondent was appointed to represent a client for an appeal to the Ninth District Court of Appeals following his conviction for aggravated burglary. To waive the filing fee for an appeal if an individual is indigent and incarcerated, a notarized affidavit of indigency must be filed with the court along with a statement from the prison with respect to any funds held in the inmates’ financial account.
{15} On January 22, 2009, the court dismissed the appeal because the required documents had not been filed. A new appellate attorney was appointed, and the appeal was reopened. The conviction was affirmed.
{16} On June 1, 2009, the Akron Bar Association received a written grievance from the client. During the investigation, respondent represented to the investigator that she had sent letters to her client about the need to prepare the affidavit of indigency and obtain information regarding his finances at the prison. When requested by the investigator, respondent e-mailed electronic copies of the letters to him in Microsoft Word format. The investigator had expected to receive scanned or hard copies of the actual letters sent to the client. He became suspicious of the format of the letters when the metadata indicated that the letters had been created at the Akron Law Library the same day he received them. The investigator questioned respondent about this. She misrepresented that she had found the paper copies but had just retyped the letters to get them to the investigator more quickly.
{17} The investigator found this explanation to be implausible, since respondent could have driven to any copy center and faxed the originals instead of driving from her home to the Akron Law Library to retype and e-mail the letters. Upon further inquiry, respondent admitted that she had in fact recreated the letters because she was unable to find the originals due to poor recordkeeping and organizational deficiencies. After the written complaint was filed, she located the original letters and provided them to the investigator, demonstrating that the substance of the letters actually sent and the recreations was the same.
{18} Respondent testified that she is a sole practitioner with little secretarial support, resulting in a high level of disorganization in her office. Since this investigation began, she has sought direction from another local attorney to
{19} We agree with the board‘s finding and the stipulations that a violation of
Sanction
{110} When imposing sanctions for attorney misconduct, we consider relevant factors, including the ethical duties the lawyer violated and the sanctions imposed in similar cases. Stark Cty. Bar Assn. v. Buttacavoli, 96 Ohio St.3d 424, 2002-Ohio-4743, 775 N.E.2d 818. We also weigh evidence of the aggravating and mitigating factors listed in
{111} As an aggravating factor, the board found that respondent had admitted to deceptive practices during the disciplinary process,
{112} We have held that “[a] violation of
{113} Significant mitigating factors are present here. Respondent has no prior disciplinary record and has shown remorse for her actions. This is a single case of misconduct with no intent to obtain financial gain. The recreated letter was later verified to be substantively the same as the original, so the misrepresentations did not mislead the investigator. Respondent also did not gain any unfair advantage from the deception, and no one was harmed. She has acknowledged her misconduct and misrepresentations and has made attempts to correct her organizational system.
{114} In Disciplinary Counsel v. Ricketts, 128 Ohio St.3d 271, 2010-Ohio-6240, 943 N.E.2d 981, 41, in which the respondent violated
{115} Accordingly, respondent, Jana Bassinger DeLoach, is suspended from the practice of law for a period of six months with the entire six months stayed. Respondent shall also serve two years of monitored probation. If respondent violates the conditions of her monitored probation, the six-month actual suspension will be imposed. Costs of these proceedings shall be taxed to respondent.
Judgment accordingly.
O‘CONNOR, C.J., and PFEIFER, LUNDBERG STRATTON, O‘DONNELL, LANZINGER, CUPP, and MCGEE BROWN, JJ., concur.
William G. Chris, Bar Counsel; Richard P. Kutuchief Law Offices and Richard P. Kutuchief; and James S. Thomasson, for relator.
Jana Bassinger DeLoach, pro se.