Case Title: Disciplinary Counsel v. Niermeyer

Citation: 2008-Ohio-3824

Docket Number: 20080388

State: ohio

Court: Ohio Supreme Court

Date: 2008-08-05T00:00:00Z

Document:
[Cite as Disciplinary Counsel v. Niermeyer, 119 Ohio St.3d 99, 2008-Ohio-3824.] 
 
 
DISCIPLINARY COUNSEL v. NIERMEYER. 
[Cite as Disciplinary Counsel v. Niermeyer,  
119 Ohio St.3d 99, 2008-Ohio-3824.] 
Attorneys — Misconduct — Engaging in conduct involving dishonesty, fraud, 
deceit, or misrepresentation — Creating evidence when lawyer knows that 
the evidence is false — Suspension stayed upon condition. 
(No. 2008-0388 – Submitted April 9, 2008 – Decided August 5, 2008.) 
ON CERTIFIED REPORT by the Board of Commissioners on Grievances and 
Discipline of the Supreme Court, No. 07-049. 
____________ 
 
Per Curiam. 
{¶ 1} Respondent, Kurt L. Niermeyer of Columbus, Ohio, Attorney 
Registration No. 0042119, was admitted to the Ohio bar in 1989.  Relator, 
Disciplinary Counsel, filed a complaint charging respondent with two violations 
of the Code of Professional Responsibility.  Respondent stipulated to the 
violations, and a panel of the Board of Commissioners on Grievances and 
Discipline held a hearing.  Based on the stipulations and other evidence, the panel 
made findings of fact, conclusions of law, and a recommendation, which the 
board adopted. 
{¶ 2} The board recommends that we suspend respondent from the 
practice of law for 12 months, with the entire suspension stayed.  We adopt the 
board’s findings of misconduct and the recommended sanction. 
Stipulated Misconduct 
{¶ 3} On April 21, 2006, Edward Hornsby hired respondent to file a 
workers’ compensation claim against Ohio University.  After filing the claim, 
respondent determined that the claim lacked sufficient medical documentation.  
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO 
2 
With the client’s permission, respondent withdrew the claim on May 31, 2006.  
This meant that respondent had until September 5, 2006, to refile the claim, or the 
claim would be time-barred. 
{¶ 4} Over the months that followed the dismissal, respondent forgot 
about Hornsby’s claim.  The matter was not brought to respondent’s attention 
again until September 7, 2006, when one of Hornsby’s doctors contacted 
respondent by phone.  After reviewing the Hornsby file, respondent realized that 
he had failed to refile Hornsby’s claim.  In an effort to remedy his neglect, 
respondent photocopied a document from an unrelated case that had a date stamp 
of August 18, 2006.  Respondent then superimposed that date stamp onto a 
document from Hornsby’s case, thereby fabricating a new, purportedly timely 
filed, document.  Respondent filed the document with the Bureau of Workers’ 
Compensation on September 7, 2006.  When questioned why a document with 
two date stamps would not draw attention from either the Bureau or the 
employer’s attorney, respondent opined that the bogus filing would not be 
questioned because the Bureau’s staff was overwhelmed with filings, and the 
Bureau had recently implemented a paperless system for its files. 
{¶ 5} Respondent testified that almost immediately after filing this 
document, he was struck with regret and overwhelmed with guilt.  Respondent 
disclosed his actions to his cousin, Andrew Cooke, a fellow attorney.  Together, 
they decided that respondent needed to consult with legal counsel.  After retaining 
legal counsel, respondent made a full disclosure of the incident to relator. 
{¶ 6} On March 28, 2007, respondent withdrew Hornsby’s claim.  
Respondent also testified that he made several attempts to inform his client of the 
missed claim deadline and his improper actions, but despite these efforts, he has 
been unable to make contact. 
{¶ 7} Respondent admitted, and the board found, that respondent had 
violated DR 1-102(A)(4) (prohibiting conduct involving dishonesty, fraud, deceit, 
January Term, 2008 
3 
or misrepresentation) and 7-102(A)(6) (prohibiting a lawyer from creating or 
preserving evidence when the lawyer knows or it is obvious that the evidence is 
false). 
Recommended Sanction 
{¶ 8} In recommending a sanction, the board considered the aggravating 
and mitigating factors listed in Section 10 of the Rules and Regulations 
Governing Procedure on Complaints and Hearings Before the Board of 
Commissioners on Grievances and Discipline (“BCGD Proc.Reg.”). 
{¶ 9} As an aggravating factor, the board found that respondent had 
acted with a dishonest or selfish motive.  BCGD Proc.Reg. 10(B)(1)(b).  In 
mitigation, the board found the absence of a prior disciplinary record.  BCGD 
Proc.Reg. 10(B)(2)(a).  The board also found that respondent had immediately 
made efforts to rectify the consequences of his misconduct and that he had 
cooperated fully in the disciplinary proceedings.  Indeed, the board noted that 
respondent 
self-reported misconduct 
that 
might have otherwise gone 
undiscovered.  BCGD Proc.Reg. 10(B)(2)(c) and (d).  The board also heard from 
several of respondent’s colleagues and friends.  From this evidence, the board 
found that respondent is highly respected for his skill and professionalism and that 
he is a devoted husband and father who is actively involved in his community and 
his church.  BCGD Proc.Reg. 10(B)(2)(e). 
{¶ 10} The panel recommended that respondent be suspended from the 
practice of law for 12 months, with the entire suspension stayed on condition of 
good behavior.  The board adopted the panel’s recommendation. 
Review 
{¶ 11} Respondent does not challenge the board’s findings of misconduct 
or the recommended sanction.  We have reviewed the board’s record and its 
report, and we agree that respondent violated DR 1-102(A)(4) and 7-102(A)(6). 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO 
4 
{¶ 12} We also agree that the board’s recommended sanction is 
appropriate.  An attorney who engages in conduct that violates DR 1-102(A)(4) 
will ordinarily be suspended from the practice of law.  Disciplinary Counsel v. 
Beeler, 105 Ohio St.3d 188, 2005-Ohio-1143, 824 N.E.2d 78, ¶ 44; Disciplinary 
Counsel v. Fowerbaugh (1995), 74 Ohio St.3d 187, 190, 658 N.E.2d 237.  We 
have found, however, that a lesser sanction may be warranted depending on the 
presence of mitigating factors.  See Cincinnati Bar Assn. v. Gottesman, 115 Ohio 
St.3d 222, 2007-Ohio-4791, 874 N.E.2d 778; Columbus Bar Assn. v. Stubbs, 109 
Ohio St.3d 446, 2006-Ohio-2818, 848 N.E.2d 843. 
{¶ 13} Respondent’s mitigating evidence in this case includes his lack of a 
disciplinary record, his full cooperation in the disciplinary process, including 
reporting his own misconduct, and his good character and reputation apart from 
the incident before us.  Respondent’s willingness to accept responsibility for his 
mistake, and the fact that this was an isolated incident in an otherwise 
unblemished legal career rather than a course of conduct, persuades us that 
respondent is unlikely to commit future misconduct. 
{¶ 14} Accordingly, respondent is suspended from the practice of law for 
12 months, with the entire suspension stayed on the condition that he commits no 
further misconduct.  If respondent violates the terms of the stay, the stay will be 
lifted, and respondent will serve the entire suspension.  Costs are taxed to 
respondent. 
Judgment accordingly. 
 
MOYER, 
C.J., 
and 
PFEIFER, 
LUNDBERG 
STRATTON, 
O’CONNOR, 
O’DONNELL, LANZINGER, and CUPP, JJ., concur. 
____________ 
 
Jonathan E. Coughlan, Disciplinary Counsel, and Heather L. Hissom, 
Assistant Disciplinary Counsel, for relator. 
January Term, 2008 
5 
 
Kegler, Brown, Hill & Ritter Co., L.P.A., Geoffrey Stern, and Rasheeda Z. 
Khan, for respondent. 
____________