Case Title: Columbus Bar Assn. v. DiAlbert

Citation: 2008-Ohio-5218

Docket Number: 20080822

State: ohio

Court: Ohio Supreme Court

Date: 2008-10-14T00:00:00Z

Document:
[Cite as Columbus Bar Assn. v. DiAlbert, 120 Ohio St.3d 37, 2008-Ohio-5218.] 
 
 
COLUMBUS BAR ASSOCIATION v. DIALBERT. 
[Cite as Columbus Bar Assn. v. DiAlbert, 
 120 Ohio St.3d 37, 2008-Ohio-5218.] 
Attorneys at law — Misconduct — Two-year license suspension partially stayed 
on conditions. 
(No. 2008-0822 – Submitted June 24, 2008 – Decided October 14, 2008.) 
ON CERTIFIED REPORT by the Board of Commissioners on Grievances and 
Discipline of the Supreme Court, No.  07-022. 
__________________ 
Per Curiam. 
{¶ 1} Respondent, John Eugene DiAlbert of Westerville, Ohio, Attorney 
Registration No. 0030101, was admitted to the practice of law in Ohio in 1985.  
On March 26, 2003, we suspended respondent’s license to practice for six 
months, staying the suspension on remedial conditions, because he misled a client 
about having filed a motion for the client’s judicial release from prison.  See 
Columbus Bar Assn. v. DiAlbert, 98 Ohio St.3d 386, 2003-Ohio-1091, 785 N.E.2d 
747.  Since May 24, 2007, respondent’s license has been suspended for his failure 
to comply with continuing legal education (“CLE”) requirements.  See In re 
Report of the Comm. on Continuing Legal Edn., 113 Ohio St.3d 1522, 2007-Ohio-
2487, 866 N.E.2d 1095. 
{¶ 2} The Board of Commissioners on Grievances and Discipline 
recommends that we now suspend respondent’s license to practice for two years, 
conditionally staying the last 18 months, based on findings that respondent failed 
to file a client’s personal-injury claim as promised, then avoided her, and finally 
lost her case to the statute of limitations.  We agree that respondent violated the 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO 
2 
Code of Professional Responsibility as found by the board and that the 
recommended sanction is appropriate. 
{¶ 3} Relator, Columbus Bar Association, charged respondent with 
seven Disciplinary Rule violations in a single count of misconduct.  A panel of 
the board heard the case, including the parties’ comprehensive stipulations, found 
all the charged misconduct, and recommended the two-year suspension with 18 
months stayed.  The board adopted the panel’s findings of misconduct and 
recommendation. 
Misconduct 
{¶ 4} Before his CLE suspension, respondent had been a sole 
practitioner for 17 years, handling small personal-injury cases and some 
domestic-relations, traffic, and criminal cases.  Mary Cabeen hired respondent in 
April 2004 to pursue a personal injury action, five months after she sustained an 
injury while shopping.  She signed respondent’s fee agreement and then rejected a 
$350 settlement offer from the store’s insurance carrier on his advice. 
{¶ 5} After accepting Cabeen’s case, respondent ignored her repeated 
attempts to contact him.  Respondent never filed a complaint in Cabeen’s case and 
allowed the statute of limitations on her claim to expire.  Respondent also never 
advised Cabeen that he did not carry liability insurance, and he never returned her 
case file. 
{¶ 6} Based on the stipulations and other evidence, we find that 
respondent violated DR l-102(A)(6) (prohibiting conduct that adversely reflects 
on fitness to practice law), 1-104(A) and (C) (requiring a lawyer to inform clients 
that the lawyer does not carry malpractice insurance), 6-l01(A)(1) (requiring a 
lawyer to represent clients competently), 6-101(A)(2) (prohibiting a lawyer from 
handling a legal matter without adequate preparation), 6-10l(A)(3) (prohibiting a 
lawyer from neglecting an entrusted legal matter), 7-l0l(A)(1) (prohibiting a 
lawyer from intentionally failing to seek a client’s lawful objectives), and 7-
January Term, 2008 
3 
l0l(A)(2) (prohibiting a lawyer from intentionally failing to carry out a contract 
for  professional services). 
Sanction 
{¶ 7} The parties jointly proposed the two-year suspension and an 18-
month stay on the conditions that respondent (1) remain in compliance with the 
three-year Ohio Lawyers’ Assistance Program (“OLAP”) recovery contract 
entered into on August 10, 2007, (2) upon applying for reinstatement, prove 
through a medical professional, approved by both parties, that he can competently 
and ethically practice law, and (3) upon reinstatement, serve a two-year monitored 
probation in accordance with Gov.Bar R. V(9).  The panel added to the sanction 
the requirement that respondent make restitution to Mary Cabeen in the amount of 
$350.  No objection has been raised to this addition. 
{¶ 8} In proposing this sanction, the parties factored in the mitigating 
and aggravating factors to which they also stipulated.  See 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.”).  
Aggravating factors included respondent’s prior disciplinary offenses, the 
vulnerability of and resulting harm to his unsophisticated client, and his failure to 
make restitution.  See BCGD Proc.Reg. 10(B)(1)(a), (h), and (i).  Mitigating 
factors included respondent’s lack of a dishonest or selfish motive, his 
cooperative attitude toward and free disclosure to the board, and a diagnosed 
mental disability that contributed to cause his misconduct.  BCGD Proc.Reg. 
10(B)(2)(b), (d), and (g). 
{¶ 9} Respondent attributed his inattention to Cabeen’s interests to 
depression, emanating from his wife’s request for a divorce in 2004.  He 
conceded that his distress over the situation eventually made him stop taking care 
of his business and his clients.  Stephanie Krznarich, OLAP’s clinical director, 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO 
4 
confirmed this depression through a report of respondent’s treating psychologist, 
John A. Tarpey, Ph.D. 
{¶ 10} Dr. Tarpey described respondent as suffering from dysthymic 
disorder, or low-level depression, a condition that he had been treating through 
weekly to biweekly therapy sessions.  Dr. Tarpey concluded that respondent’s 
depression “directly related to poor decision making associated with his 
professional problems.”  Dr. Tarpey was optimistic that with continued treatment, 
respondent could resume responsible professional practice. 
{¶ 11} A two-year suspension with a partial stay on rigorous conditions 
for treatment of a mitigating mental disability is an appropriate sanction for a 
lawyer who has repeatedly allowed a client’s case to languish, especially when 
cases are lost to the statute of limitations.  See Disciplinary Counsel v. Jaffe, 102 
Ohio St.3d 273, 2004-Ohio-2685, 809 N.E.2d 1122. 
{¶ 12} We accept the parties’, panel’s, and board’s recommendation.  We 
therefore suspend respondent from the practice of law in Ohio for two years.  The 
last 18 months of respondent’s suspension are to be stayed on the conditions that 
(1) he stay in compliance with the three-year OLAP recovery contract entered into 
on August 10, 2007; (2) he pay restitution to Mary Cabeen in the amount of $350 
within 30 days of this order; (3) upon applying for reinstatement, he prove 
through a medical professional, approved by both parties, that he can competently 
and ethically practice law; and (4) upon reinstatement, he serve a two-year 
monitored probation, in accordance with Gov.Bar R. V(9).  If respondent fails to 
comply with the conditions for the stay or his probation, the stay will be lifted, 
and he will serve the entire two-year suspension. 
{¶ 13} Costs are taxed to respondent. 
Judgment accordingly. 
 
MOYER, 
C.J., 
and 
PFEIFER, 
LUNDBERG 
STRATTON, 
O’CONNOR, 
O’DONNELL, LANZINGER, and CUPP, JJ., concur. 
January Term, 2008 
5 
__________________ 
Bruce A. Campbell, Bar Counsel; A. Alysha Clous, Assistant Bar 
Counsel; and Vorys, Sater, Seymour & Pease, L.L.P., and Lisa Pierce Reisz, for 
relator. 
John Eugene DiAlbert, pro se. 
______________________