Case Title: Dayton Bar Assn. v. Siehl

Citation: 2013-Ohio-735

Docket Number: 2012-1691

State: ohio

Court: Ohio Supreme Court

Date: 2013-03-06T00:00:00Z

Document:
[Until this opinion appears in the Ohio Official Reports advance sheets, it may be cited as 
Dayton Bar Assn. v. Siehl, Slip Opinion No. 2013-Ohio-735.] 
 
 
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. 2013-OHIO-735 
DAYTON BAR ASSOCIATION v. SIEHL. 
[Until this opinion appears in the Ohio Official Reports advance sheets, it 
may be cited as Dayton Bar Assn. v. Siehl, Slip Opinion No. 2013-Ohio-735.] 
Attorneys—Misconduct—Violation of the Rules of Professional Conduct—Failure 
to respond to request for information from a disciplinary authority during 
an investigation—Indefinite suspension. 
(No. 2012-1691—Submitted January 9, 2013—Decided March 6, 2013.) 
ON CERTIFIED REPORT by the Board of Commissioners on Grievances and 
Discipline of the Supreme Court, No. 11-108. 
__________________ 
Per Curiam. 
{¶ 1} Respondent, Andrew Fraser Siehl of Eaton, Ohio, Attorney 
Registration No. 0065173, was admitted to the practice of law in Ohio in 1995.  
On November 3, 2009, we issued an order suspending Siehl for his failure to 
register for the 2009-2011 biennium.  In re Attorney Registration Suspension of 
Siehl, 123 Ohio St.3d 1475, 2009-Ohio-5786, 915 N.E.2d 1256.  The Office of 
Attorney Services reinstated him to the practice of law on November 6, 2009.  
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO 
2 
 
Just 12 days later, we indefinitely suspended Siehl from the practice of law in 
Ohio for deserting an incarcerated client who was seeking postconviction relief 
and then failing to respond during the resulting disciplinary investigation.  
Disciplinary Counsel v. Siehl, 123 Ohio St.3d 480, 2009-Ohio-5936, 918 N.E.2d 
143. 
{¶ 2} After relator, Dayton Bar Association, alleged that Siehl had failed 
to respond to a disciplinary investigation arising from a client’s February 2010 
grievance against him, a panel of the Board of Commissioners on Grievances and 
Discipline found that probable cause existed for the filing of a formal complaint 
against him.  Accordingly, on December 5, 2011, relator filed a complaint.  
Certified-mail service was attempted but returned unclaimed.  The board then 
served the complaint on the clerk of the Supreme Court on January 9, 2012, 
pursuant to Gov.Bar R. V(11)(B). 
{¶ 3} Siehl did not answer the complaint, and on July 9, 2012, relator 
moved for default.  In support of its motion, relator submitted the affidavit of its 
investigator, Cheryl A. Bennett.  Bennett avers that she attempted to contact Siehl 
at three separate addresses, including two former addresses and one current 
address—135 Camden Road, Eaton, Ohio 45320.  The mail sent to the former 
addresses was returned, but the mail sent to the current address was not.  Knowing 
that Siehl was a member of the Eaton City Council, relator left messages with that 
entity but received no response.  Siehl did not respond to a request for him to 
appear before relator’s certified grievance committee to explain his failure to 
cooperate. 
{¶ 4} A master commissioner appointed by the board found that Siehl 
failed to respond to relator’s attempts to communicate with him, thereby violating 
Prof.Cond.R. 8.1(b) (prohibiting a lawyer from knowingly failing to respond to a 
demand for information by a disciplinary authority during an investigation).  
Citing Siehl’s prior disciplinary record and lack of cooperation in the present 
January Term, 2013 
3 
 
disciplinary investigation, see BCGD Proc.Reg. 10(B)(1)(a) and (e), and the 
absence of any mitigating factors, the master commissioner adopted relator’s 
recommendation that Siehl be permanently disbarred from the practice of law in 
Ohio. 
{¶ 5} The board adopted the master commissioner’s findings of fact and 
misconduct but recommends that we impose a second indefinite suspension to run 
consecutively to the suspension we imposed in 2009. 
{¶ 6} We adopt the board’s recommendation and hereby indefinitely 
suspend Andrew Fraser Siehl from the practice of law in Ohio.  This suspension 
shall commence on the date of this opinion and order.  Costs are taxed to Siehl. 
Judgment accordingly. 
PFEIFER, O’DONNELL, LANZINGER, KENNEDY, FRENCH, and O’NEILL, JJ., 
concur. 
O’CONNOR, C.J., dissents and would disbar respondent. 
__________________ 
James M. Thorson Jr., for relator. 
______________________