Case Title: Akron Bar Assn. v. DeLoach

Citation: 2012-Ohio-4629

Docket Number: 2012-0688

State: ohio

Court: Ohio Supreme Court

Date: 2012-10-10T00:00:00Z

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. 2012-Ohio-4629.] 
 
 
 
 
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. 2012-OHIO-4629 
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. 2012-Ohio-4629.] 
Attorneys—Misconduct—Failure to notify clients of lack of malpractice 
insurance—Public reprimand. 
(No. 2012-0688—Submitted June 6, 2012—Decided October 10, 2012.) 
ON CERTIFIED REPORT by the Board of Commissioners on Grievances and 
Discipline of the Supreme Court, No. 11-085. 
__________________ 
 
Per Curiam. 
{¶ 1} Respondent, Jana Bassinger DeLoach of Akron, Ohio, Attorney 
Registration No. 0071743, was admitted to the practice of law in Ohio in 1999.  In 
2011, we suspended DeLoach’s license to practice law, stayed the suspension, and 
imposed a two-year probation pursuant to Gov.Bar R. V(9).  Akron Bar Assn. v. 
DeLoach, 130 Ohio St.3d 153, 2011-Ohio-4201, 956 N.E.2d 811. 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO 
2 
 
{¶ 2} In October 2011, less than two months after we imposed discipline 
on DeLoach, relator, Akron Bar Association, filed a complaint alleging that when 
representing two clients, DeLoach violated Prof.Cond.R. 1.4(c) (requiring a 
lawyer to give clients written notice if the lawyer does not maintain professional-
liability insurance and to have clients sign the notice).  The parties have submitted 
stipulations of fact and misconduct, and a panel of the Board of Commissioners 
on Grievances and Discipline conducted a hearing to determine the appropriate 
sanction for the misconduct.  The board has accepted the parties’ agreed 
stipulations and the panel’s recommendation that we publicly reprimand DeLoach 
for her conduct.  We adopt the board’s findings of fact and misconduct and 
hereby publicly reprimand DeLoach for violating Prof.Cond.R. 1.4(c). 
Misconduct 
{¶ 3} The stipulated facts of this case and DeLoach’s hearing testimony 
establish that in January 2011, members of the Akron Bar Association’s certified 
grievance committee discovered the malpractice-insurance violations while 
interviewing DeLoach about two other grievances filed against her.  DeLoach 
advised the committee members that she did not carry liability insurance and that 
she had not informed her clients in writing or had them sign any acknowledgment 
of that fact.  The committee voted to dismiss the underlying grievances.  We 
accept the findings of misconduct as stipulated by the parties and as found by the 
panel and adopted by the board. 
Aggravating and Mitigating Factors 
{¶ 4} The board found one aggravating factor:  DeLoach has been 
previously disciplined.  See BCGD Proc.Reg. 10(B)(1)(a).  By contrast, the board 
noted substantial mitigation.  Before the panel, DeLoach testified to her 
dedication to her clients, most of whom are indigent criminal defendants seeking 
postconviction relief, a unique specialty in Akron.  Two character witnesses, a 
colleague and the mother of one of her clients, testified to her diligence, passion, 
January Term, 2012 
3 
 
and good character.  Both echoed DeLoach’s assertion that she pursues justice for 
her clients regardless of their ability to pay her.  See BCGD Proc.Reg.  
10(B)(2)(b), (d), and (e).  The panel and board found that this mitigation far 
outweighed the one aggravating factor. 
Sanction 
{¶ 5} When imposing sanctions for attorney misconduct, we consider all 
relevant factors, including the duties violated by the lawyer in question 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, ¶ 16.  The Akron Bar Association 
made no recommendation as to sanction, and DeLoach seeks only to continue 
practicing law. 
{¶ 6} The board recommends a public reprimand because DeLoach’s 
earlier probation continues, so DeLoach is already working with a monitor to 
improve the organization and integrity of her practice.  We must keep in mind that 
“our primary purpose in imposing disciplinary sanctions is not to punish the 
offender but to protect the public.”  Toledo Bar Assn. v. Scott, 129 Ohio St.3d 
479, 2011-Ohio-4185, 953 N.E.2d 831, ¶ 16.  A public reprimand, in addition to 
DeLoach’s stayed suspension and monitored probation, is consistent with the 
purpose of the disciplinary system. 
{¶ 7} As the board noted, case law also supports a public reprimand.  
The board cites Cincinnati Bar Assn. v. Trainor, 110 Ohio St.3d 141, 2006-Ohio-
3825, 851 N.E.2d 505, ¶ 9, for the conclusion that a lawyer’s failure to notify 
clients that he or she lacks malpractice insurance warrants a public reprimand.  
We publicly reprimanded Trainor even though he had previously committed 
professional misconduct.  Id. at ¶ 5. 
{¶ 8} Having weighed the aggravating and mitigating factors in this case 
and having considered the sanction previously imposed for the same misconduct, 
we adopt the board’s recommended sanction of a public reprimand.  We agree 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO 
4 
 
that DeLoach failed to properly notify her clients that she had no malpractice 
insurance in violation of Prof.Cond.R. 1.4(c) and that a public reprimand is 
warranted.  DeLoach is hereby publicly reprimanded. Costs are taxed to DeLoach. 
Judgment accordingly. 
O’CONNOR, C.J., and PFEIFER, LUNDBERG STRATTON, O’DONNELL, 
LANZINGER, CUPP, and MCGEE BROWN, JJ., concur. 
__________________ 
Burdon & Merlitti and Nathan A. Ray; and Roetzel & Andress, L.P.A., 
and Steven Cox, for relator. 
Jana DeLoach, pro se. 
______________________