Case Title: Erie-Huron Grievance Commt. v. Stoll

Citation: 2010-Ohio-5985

Docket Number: 20101217

State: ohio

Court: Ohio Supreme Court

Date: 2010-12-14T00:00:00Z

Document:
[Cite as Erie-Huron Grievance Commt. v. Stoll, 127 Ohio St.3d 290, 2010-Ohio-5985.] 
 
 
ERIE-HURON GRIEVANCE COMMITTEE v. STOLL. 
[Cite as Erie-Huron Grievance Commt. v. Stoll,  
127 Ohio St.3d 290, 2010-Ohio-5985.] 
Attorneys — Misconduct — Neglecting entrusted legal matter — Failing to act 
with reasonable diligence and promptness — Two-year suspension, one 
year stayed, on conditions. 
(No. 2010-1217 — Submitted October 13, 2010 — Decided December 14, 2010.) 
ON CERTIFIED REPORT by the Board of Commissioners on Grievances and 
Discipline of the Supreme Court, No. 09-085. 
__________________ 
Per Curiam. 
{¶ 1} Respondent, Thomas John Stoll of Norwalk, Ohio, Attorney 
Registration No. 0064191, was admitted to the practice of law in Ohio in 1994.  In 
September 2009, relator, Erie-Huron Grievance Committee, filed a 22-count 
complaint charging respondent with violations of the Code of Professional 
Responsibility and the Ohio Rules of Professional Conduct.  Twenty-one of those 
counts arose from respondent’s representation of 21 different clients in probate 
and guardianship proceedings in the Huron County Common Pleas Court. In each 
instance, respondent failed to file necessary documents, despite repeated requests 
from that court. Count 22 involved a similar failure to file in bankruptcy court. 
{¶ 2} A panel of the Board of Commissioners on Grievances and 
Discipline found that respondent had committed the misconduct alleged and 
recommended that respondent be suspended from the practice of law in Ohio for 
two years, with one year stayed, on the condition that reinstatement be contingent 
upon respondent’s (1) providing medical evidence establishing his ability to 
ethically and competently practice law, (2) maintaining his contract with the Ohio 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO 
2 
 
Lawyers Assistance Program (“OLAP”), and (3) serving a two-year probation 
period after reinstatement with a monitor to be selected by relator. The board, in 
turn, adopted the panel’s report as its own. Respondent filed objections to the 
board’s report, urging us to stay the entire two-year suspension based upon the 
mitigation evidence presented. For the reasons to follow, we overrule 
respondent’s objections and adopt the board’s findings of fact, conclusions of law, 
and recommended sanction. 
Misconduct 
{¶ 3} At his hearing before the panel, respondent stipulated to the 
misconduct alleged. In counts 2 through 21, respondent was retained by separate 
clients in estate proceedings before the Probate Division of the Huron County 
Common Pleas Court between 1998 and 2007.  Respondent admitted that in each 
case, he did not file the documents necessary to close those estates despite 
repeated requests from the court in each instance to do so. 
{¶ 4} Counts 1 and 22 also arose from respondent’s failure to file 
documents. Count 1 states that respondent was retained in June 2007 to file an 
accounting in a guardianship matter.  Respondent stipulated that he did not file 
that account or seek an extension of time to do so, despite repeated requests by the 
court.  Count 22 states that respondent initiated an adversary proceeding in 
bankruptcy court in 2005 for his client. A settlement was eventually proposed and 
accepted, but respondent did not submit the settlement entry for approval, which 
led to the dismissal of the case and prejudice to his client. 
{¶ 5} The panel found that in each of the estate matters (counts 2 through 
21), respondent had neglected a legal matter entrusted to him.  Accordingly, 
violations of DR 6-101(A)(3) were found in each count, and because the 
misconduct began before February 1, 2007, and continued thereafter, the board 
found them to be continuing violations.  A violation of DR 6-101(A)(3) was also 
found in count 22, where respondent’s lack of diligence and neglect resulted in 
January Term, 2010 
3 
 
the dismissal of his client’s bankruptcy case. Finally, in the count 1 guardianship 
matter, respondent’s failure to file a requested accounting was found to constitute 
a violation of Prof.Cond.R. 1.3. 
{¶ 6} The board adopted the panel’s findings of misconduct, as do we. 
Sanction 
{¶ 7} In recommending a sanction for this misconduct, the board 
considered whether any of the mitigating and aggravating 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.”) applied.  The board found two aggravating factors:  (1) a 
pattern of misconduct extending for more than ten years (BCGD Proc.Reg. 
10(B)(1)(c)), and (2) multiple offenses involving 20 or more clients (BCGD 
Proc.Reg. 10(B)(1)(d)). 
{¶ 8} In mitigation, respondent attempted to attribute his misconduct to 
poor overall physical health and depression.  Respondent presented no testimony 
from a medical professional as to the former, but at the request of the panel, 
submitted records of medical treatment by his family doctor since 1998.  These 
records showed sporadic visits for assorted ailments and general malaise over the 
years, but they did not substantiate an ongoing chronic condition as respondent 
seemed to imply. 
{¶ 9} Respondent also testified that he had suffered from depression and 
anxiety for several years. Respondent did not, however, present any evidence that 
he had ever been diagnosed or treated for these conditions. Instead, respondent 
presented the testimony of an OLAP counselor, Megan R. Snyder, M.S.W., 
L.I.S.W.  She stated that respondent had initially contacted OLAP just days before 
the panel hearing.  She further stated that respondent did suffer from depression 
and anxiety, but she did not render an opinion as to whether respondent’s 
depression and anxiety actually contributed to his neglect of the legal matters 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO 
4 
 
entrusted to him over the time period in question.  Snyder’s June 10, 2010 follow-
up letter also offered no opinion in that regard, but did state that respondent was 
complying with his OLAP contract.  Respondent testified that his emotional 
condition interfered almost exclusively with his estate practice, which, by his own 
admission, constituted only 20 percent of his practice. Thus, the majority of his 
case load was unaffected by his emotional condition. 
{¶ 10} The board was also concerned by respondent’s inability to halt his 
ongoing neglect of the cases cited in the complaint, despite repeated attempts by 
the probate court to assist him.  The Huron County probate and juvenile judge 
testified that in the fall of 2006, he had the first of eight meetings with respondent 
to “motivate [respondent] to complete the work that he was behind on.”  Each 
month, the judge would meet with respondent and review a spreadsheet of cases 
in which he was tardy in filing certain pleadings.  The judge testified that each 
month, respondent “would invariably indicate to me that he was very close to 
completing a certain case or closing out a certain case,” but that was rarely true. 
{¶ 11} Ultimately, the board did not explicitly find respondent’s 
depression and anxiety to be factors in mitigation.  It did, however, find three 
other factors in mitigation:  (1) absence of a prior disciplinary record, (2) a 
cooperative attitude toward the proceedings, and (3) respondent’s overall 
reputation (BCGD Proc.Reg. 10(B)(2)(a),(d), and (e)).  The board also noted that 
respondent acknowledged the wrongfulness of his conduct and expressed remorse 
for his actions. 
{¶ 12} The board recommended a two-year suspension from the practice 
of law, with one year stayed, and reinstatement contingent upon three conditions:  
(1) respondent’s submission of medical proof establishing his ability to 
competently and ethically practice law, (2) his continued compliance with his 
OLAP contract, and (3) his successful completion of a two-year probation period 
January Term, 2010 
5 
 
after reinstatement under the supervision of a monitor to be appointed by relator.  
Respondent, however, seeks to have the entire two-year suspension stayed. 
{¶ 13} We adopt the board’s recommendation, as well as its findings of 
fact and conclusions of law. In adopting the board’s proposed sanction, we rely on 
two decisions.  In Disciplinary Counsel v. Bowman, 110 Ohio St.3d 480, 2006-
Ohio-4333, 854 N.E.2d 480, we considered the appropriate sanction for an 
attorney who, as here, suffered from depression and was participating in the 
OLAP program.  We held that an actual suspension from the practice of law with 
conditions for reinstatement was warranted “in order to protect the public and to 
ensure that respondent is able to successfully manage his illness.”  Id. at ¶ 39.  We 
reached the same result more recently in Columbus Bar Assn. v. Ellis, 120 Ohio 
St.3d 89, 2008-Ohio-5278, 896 N.E.2d 703. 
{¶ 14} Respondent is hereby suspended from the practice of law in Ohio 
for two years, with one year stayed. Reinstatement is conditioned on (1) 
respondent’s submission of medical proof establishing his ability to competently 
and ethically practice law and (2) his continued compliance with his OLAP 
contract. Upon reinstatement, respondent must undergo a two-year probation 
period under the supervision of a monitor to be appointed by relator.  Costs are 
taxed to respondent. 
Judgment accordingly. 
 
BROWN, 
C.J., 
and 
PFEIFER, 
LUNDBERG 
STRATTON, 
O’CONNOR, 
O’DONNELL, LANZINGER, and CUPP, JJ., concur. 
__________________ 
 
Richard B. Hauser, Certified Bar Counsel, for relator. 
 
Thomas J. Stoll, pro se. 
______________________