Case Title: Cuyahoga Cty. Bar Assn. v. Muhlbach

Citation: 1999-Ohio-192

Docket Number: 

State: ohio

Court: Ohio Supreme Court

Date: 1999-09-22T00:00:00Z

Document:
[Cite as Cuyahoga Cty. Bar Assn. v. Muhlbach, 86 Ohio St.3d 547, 1999-Ohio-192.] 
 
 
 
 
 
CUYAHOGA COUNTY BAR ASSOCIATION v. MUHLBACH. 
[Cite as Cuyahoga Cty. Bar Assn. v. Muhlbach (1999), 86 Ohio St.3d 547.] 
Attorneys at law —  Misconduct — One-year suspension — Neglect of an entrusted 
legal matter — Failing to carry out contract of employment — Failing to 
cooperate in disciplinary investigation. 
(No. 99-808 — Submitted June 9, 1999 — Decided September 8, 1999.) 
ON CERTIFIED REPORT by the Board of Commissioners on Grievances and 
Discipline of the Supreme Court, No. 98-39. 
 
Carol Oakar retained respondent, P. Michael Muhlbach of Parma, Ohio, 
Attorney Registration No. 0058412, to represent her in a wrongful-discharge 
matter.  Respondent filed an action, but failed to file a timely response to a motion 
to dismiss some of Oakar’s claims, and the common pleas court dismissed those 
claims with prejudice.  Respondent later filed a second amended complaint for 
Oakar, but then failed to file a motion for default judgment when a defendant failed 
to file an answer.  Respondent ultimately secured Oakar’s consent to dismiss the 
remainder of the case without prejudice because the discovery cutoff date had 
expired, and he recommended that Oakar refile it with another attorney who was 
more experienced in employment law.  Oakar followed respondent’s advice and 
discharged respondent. 
 
Oakar filed a grievance with relator, Cuyahoga County Bar Association, and 
respondent initially failed to respond to relator’s investigative inquiries.  
Respondent, however, subsequently appeared for a deposition conducted by 
relator. 
 
On August 25, 1998, relator filed an amended complaint charging 
respondent with violating several Disciplinary Rules and Gov.Bar R. V(4)(G) in 
connection with his representation of Oakar and his representation of two other 
 
2 
clients.  In September 1998, in a separate disciplinary matter, we suspended 
respondent from the practice of law for six months with the suspension stayed and 
respondent placed on probation, conditioned on no further disciplinary complaints 
being certified against respondent during the six-month probationary period.  
Medina Cty. Bar Assn. v. Muhlbach (1998), 83 Ohio St.3d 224, 699 N.E.2d 459. 
 
The matters raised by the August 1998 amended complaint were submitted 
to a panel of the Board of Commissioners on Grievances and Discipline of the 
Supreme Court (“board”) on relator’s motion for default judgment.  The panel 
found the facts as previously set forth regarding the Oakar matter and subsequent 
disciplinary investigation, and dismissed the charges relating to respondents’ other 
clients.  The panel concluded that respondent’s conduct violated DR 6-101(A)(3) 
(neglecting an entrusted legal matter), 7-101(A)(2) (failing to carry out an 
employment contract), and Gov.Bar R. V(4)(G) (failing to cooperate with a 
disciplinary investigation).  The panel also noted that respondent did not violate his 
probation in his separate disciplinary case because the amended complaint in this 
case was certified before the onset of his six-month probationary period. 
 
The panel recommended that respondent be suspended from the practice of 
law in Ohio for one year with six months of the suspension stayed upon conditions.  
The board adopted the findings and conclusions of the panel, but because of his 
prior disciplinary record, recommended that respondent be suspended for the entire 
one-year period without any stay. 
__________________ 
 
Nancy J. Fleming; Weston, Hurd, Fallon, Paisley & Howley and 
Christopher M. Ernst; McCafferty & Perlman Co., L.P.A., and Robert Steely, for 
relator. 
__________________ 
 
Per Curiam.  We adopt the findings, conclusions, and recommendation of 
 
3 
the board.  Although neglect of legal matters and a failure to cooperate in the 
ensuing disciplinary investigation normally warrant an indefinite suspension, a 
one-year suspension is appropriate here given the isolated nature of the neglect, the 
lack of evidence of substantial damage to his client, and respondent’s eventual 
cooperation with relator’s investigation.  See, e.g., Cleveland Bar Assn. v. Rollins 
(1999), 84 Ohio St.3d 408, 410, 704 N.E.2d 1210, 1211-1212.  Respondent is 
hereby suspended from the practice of law in Ohio for one year.  Costs taxed to 
respondent. 
Judgment accordingly. 
 
MOYER, C.J., DOUGLAS, RESNICK, F.E. SWEENEY, PFEIFER, COOK and 
LUNDBERG STRATTON, JJ., concur.