Case Title: Akron Bar Assn. v. DeLoach

Citation: 2011-Ohio-4201

Docket Number: 

State: ohio

Court: Ohio Supreme Court

Date: 2011-08-31T00:00:00Z

Document:
[Until this opinion appears in the Ohio Official Reports advance sheets, it may be cited as 
Akron Bar Assn. v. DeLoach, Slip Opinion No. 2011-Ohio-4201.] 
 
 
NOTICE 
This slip opinion is subject to formal revision before it is published in 
an advance sheet of the Ohio Official Reports.  Readers are requested 
to promptly notify the Reporter of Decisions, Supreme Court of Ohio, 
65 South Front Street, Columbus, Ohio 43215, of any typographical or 
other formal errors in the opinion, in order that corrections may be 
made before the opinion is published. 
 
SLIP OPINION NO. 2011-OHIO-4201 
AKRON BAR ASSOCIATION v. DELOACH. 
[Until this opinion appears in the Ohio Official Reports advance sheets, it 
may be cited as Akron Bar Assn. v. DeLoach,  
Slip Opinion No. 2011-Ohio-4201.] 
Attorneys — Misconduct — Conduct involving dishonesty, fraud, deceit, or 
misrepresentation — Significant mitigating factors — Six-month 
suspension, all stayed, with two years’ probation. 
(No. 2011-0353 — Submitted April 19, 2011 — Decided August 31, 2011.) 
ON CERTIFIED REPORT by the Board of Commissioners on Grievances and 
Discipline of the Supreme Court, No. 10-010. 
__________________ 
Per Curiam. 
{¶ 1} 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 Prof.Cond.R. 1.3 and 1.4, claiming that respondent failed to act with 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO 
2 
 
reasonable diligence and promptness in representing her client and that she failed 
to reasonably communicate with her client.  The second count alleged violations 
of Prof.Cond.R. 8.4(c) (prohibiting a lawyer from engaging in conduct involving 
dishonesty, fraud, deceit, or misrepresentation) and Gov.Bar R. V(4)(G) 
(requiring a lawyer to cooperate with the investigation). 
{¶ 2} 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 Gov.Bar R. V(4)(G), but found a violation of Prof.Cond.R. 8.4(c).  
Accordingly, the panel recommended the jointly proposed sanction of a six-month 
suspension, all stayed, on the condition of no further disciplinary violations, with 
costs taxed to respondent. 
{¶ 3} 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. 
Misconduct 
{¶ 4} 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.  Loc.R. 
2(C) of the Ninth Appellate District.  Respondent filed the motion to waive the 
monetary filing deposit along with the notice of appeal.  But the court denied the 
motion because respondent failed to file the affidavit of indigency and supporting 
January Term, 2011 
3 
 
financial documents.  The court ordered the client to pay the deposit or request a 
waiver of the deposit and to show good cause if he could not comply before 
December 10, 2008. 
{¶ 5} 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. 
{¶ 6} 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. 
{¶ 7} 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 were the same. 
{¶ 8} Respondent testified that she is a sole practitioner with little 
secretarial support, resulting in a high level of disorganization in her office. Since 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO 
4 
 
this investigation began, she has sought direction from another local attorney to 
improve her office practices and is planning to re-engage a former secretary for 
assistance. 
{¶ 9} We agree with the board’s finding and the stipulations that a 
violation of Prof.Cond.R. 8.4(c) occurred. 
Sanction 
{¶ 10} 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 Section 10(B) of the Rules and Regulations 
Governing Procedure on Complaints and Hearings Before the Board of 
Commissioners on Grievances and Discipline (“BCGD Proc.Reg.”).  Disciplinary 
Counsel v. Broeren, 115 Ohio St.3d 473, 2007-Ohio-5251, 875 N.E.2d 935. 
{¶ 11} As an aggravating factor, the board found that respondent had 
admitted to deceptive practices during the disciplinary process, BCGD Proc.Reg. 
10(B)(1)(f).  The board also found a mitigating factor in the absence of a prior 
disciplinary record, BCGD Proc.Reg. 10(B)(2)(a). 
{¶ 12} We have held that “[a] violation of Prof.Cond.R. 8.4(c) will 
typically result in an actual suspension from the practice of law unless ‘significant 
mitigating factors that warrant a departure’ from that principle are present.”  
Disciplinary Counsel v. Potter, 126 Ohio St.3d 50, 2010-Ohio-2521, 930 N.E.2d 
307, ¶ 10, quoting Disciplinary Counsel v. Rohrer, 124 Ohio St.3d 65, 2009-
Ohio-5930, 919 N.E.2d 180, ¶ 45.  See Disciplinary Counsel v. Carroll, 106 Ohio 
St.3d 84, 2005-Ohio-3805, 831 N.E.2d 1000, ¶ 13 (violation of analogous former 
DR 1-102(A)(4) usually results in an actual suspension unless mitigating factors 
warrant a lesser sanction). 
January Term, 2011 
5 
 
{¶ 13} Significant mitigating factors are present here.  Respondent has no 
prior disciplinary record and has showed 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. 
{¶ 14} In Disciplinary Counsel v. Ricketts, 128 Ohio St.3d 271, 2010-
Ohio-6240, 943 N.E.2d 981, ¶ 41, in which the respondent violated DR 1-
102(A)(4), we found that the lack of a malicious or selfish motive for the 
misrepresentation warranted a stayed six-month suspension.  Based upon 
respondent’s own admissions in this case that she violated Prof.Cond.R. 8.4(c) 
and the fact that she does not have a prior disciplinary record, the board 
recommended a six-month suspension, all stayed on the condition of two years’ 
monitored probation.  We adopt the board’s recommended sanction. 
{¶ 15} 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. 
 
__________________ 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO 
6 
 
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. 
______________________