Case Title: Disciplinary Counsel v. Siehl

Citation: 2009-Ohio-5936

Docket Number: 20091233

State: ohio

Court: Ohio Supreme Court

Date: 2009-11-18T00:00:00Z

Document:
[Until this opinion appears in the Ohio Official Reports advance sheets, it may be cited as 
Disciplinary Counsel v. Siehl, Slip Opinion No. 2009-Ohio-5936.] 
 
 
 
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. 2009-OHIO-5936 
DISCIPLINARY COUNSEL v. SIEHL. 
[Until this opinion appears in the Ohio Official Reports advance sheets, it 
may be cited as Disciplinary Counsel v. Siehl,  
Slip Opinion No. 2009-Ohio-5936.] 
Attorneys at law — Misconduct — Failure to act with reasonable diligence and 
promptness in representing a client — Failure to communicate with a 
client — Failure to cooperate in disciplinary proceeding — Indefinite 
suspension. 
(No. 2009-1233 ⎯ Submitted September 2, 2009 — Decided  
November 18, 2009.) 
ON CERTIFIED REPORT by the Board of Commissioners on Grievances and 
Discipline of the Supreme Court, No. 08-089. 
__________________ 
Per Curiam. 
{¶ 1} Respondent, Andrew Fraser Siehl of Eaton, Ohio, Attorney 
Registration No. 0065173, was admitted to the practice of law in Ohio in 1995.  
The Board of Commissioners on Grievances and Discipline now recommends that 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO 
2 
 
we indefinitely suspend respondent’s license to practice, based on findings that he 
deserted an incarcerated client seeking postconviction relief and then failed to 
respond during the ensuing disciplinary investigation.  We accept the board’s 
findings that respondent violated ethical standards incumbent on lawyers in this 
state and the board’s recommendation for an indefinite suspension of respondent. 
{¶ 2} Relator, Disciplinary Counsel, charged respondent with two counts 
of professional misconduct, mainly involving violations of the Code of 
Professional Conduct.  Relator served respondent with notice of the complaint, 
but he failed to answer, and relator moved for default.  See Gov.Bar R. V(6)(F).  
A master commissioner appointed by the board recommended that the motion be 
granted, making findings of fact, conclusions of law, and a recommendation for 
respondent’s indefinite suspension from practice.  In effect granting the motion 
for default, the board adopted the master commissioner’s findings of misconduct 
and recommendation. 
Misconduct 
Count I 
{¶ 3} The Preble County Court of Common Pleas appointed respondent 
in January 2008 to represent an incarcerated client in postconviction proceedings.  
The client wrote to respondent that January and February, asking to discuss his 
case.  Respondent failed without explanation to respond to his client and never 
filed anything on his behalf. 
{¶ 4} The board found that by doing nothing for his client, respondent 
had violated Prof.Cond.R. 1.3 (requiring a lawyer to act diligently in representing 
a client) and 1.4(a)(3) (requiring a lawyer to “keep the client reasonably informed 
about the status of the matter”) and (4) (requiring a lawyer to “comply as soon as 
practicable with reasonable requests for information from the client”).  And 
because respondent failed to honor his court appointment, the board found that he 
had violated Prof.Cond.R. 8.4(d) (prohibiting a lawyer from engaging in “conduct 
January Term, 2009 
3 
 
that is prejudicial to the administration of justice”) and (h) (prohibiting a lawyer 
from engaging in conduct that “adversely reflects on the lawyer’s fitness to 
practice law”).  We accept these findings of misconduct. 
Count II 
{¶ 5} The client reported respondent’s neglect to relator.  Despite his 
professional duty to respond during the ensuing disciplinary investigation, 
respondent ignored virtually all notice of that proceeding.  Respondent replied 
only once, when in mid-August 2008 relator’s investigator personally delivered 
notice of the grievance to him, and respondent promised to “take care of it.”  The 
board recounted relator’s efforts to obtain a suitable response during the 
investigation: 
{¶ 6} “a.  On May 30, 2008, Respondent was notified by certified mail 
of the April 28, 2008, grievance of [his] client.  The receipt was signed on June 
16, 2008, but there was no response. 
{¶ 7} “b.  On June 25, 2008 and July 9, 2008, further letters [of] notice 
[were] sent via certified mail to the address supplied by Respondent to the office 
of Attorney Registration at the Supreme Court.  Both were returned unclaimed. 
{¶ 8} “c.  Regular mail notice and inquiry were sent July 22, 2008, by 
regular mail to which Respondent did not reply. 
{¶ 9} “d.  On August 14, 2008, Relator, through its investigator, 
personally delivered a second letter of inquiry to the Respondent with advice to 
respond.  Respondent never responded to Disciplinary Counsel. 
{¶ 10} “e.  A subpoena duces tecum was served by Relator’s investigator 
personally upon Respondent on September 9, 2008, setting an appearance on 
October [3], 2008.  Respondent failed to appear or contact Relator.” 
{¶ 11} The board found that respondent had violated Prof.Cond.R. 8.1(b) 
(requiring a lawyer, with an exception not relevant here, to respond to “a demand 
for information from [a] * * * disciplinary authority”) and, consequently, that he 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO 
4 
 
had also violated Prof.Cond.R. 8.4(d) and (h).  We accept these findings of 
misconduct. 
Sanction 
{¶ 12} In recommending a sanction for respondent’s misconduct, the 
board consulted sanctions imposed in similar cases and considered whether 
aggravating or mitigating factors warrant a more severe or lenient disposition.  
BCGD Proc.Reg. 10(B). 
{¶ 13} The board relied principally on Disciplinary Counsel v. Boylan 
(1999), 85 Ohio St.3d 115, 707 N.E.2d 465, in which we ordered a lawyer’s 
indefinite suspension from practice.  Like respondent, that lawyer neglected a 
client he had accepted by court appointment—he failed to file an appellate brief 
and caused dismissal of the appeal⎯and then did not respond to investigative 
inquiries about the client’s grievance.  Noting his unacceptable indifference 
toward the process for policing the legal profession, we said that “an indefinite 
suspension from the practice of law ‘is especially fitting * * * where neglect of a 
legal matter is coupled with a failure to cooperate in the ensuing disciplinary 
investigation.’ ”  Id. at 117, quoting Warren Cty. Bar Assn. v. Lieger (1997), 79 
Ohio St.3d 488, 490, 683 N.E.2d 1148.  And as the board found, the single 
mitigating factor that respondent has no previous disciplinary record, BCGD 
Proc.Reg. 10(B)(2(a), does not warrant a departure from Boylan. 
{¶ 14} Respondent is therefore indefinitely suspended from the practice of 
law in Ohio.  Pursuant to Gov.Bar R. V(10)(B), he may not petition for 
reinstatement before two years from the date of our order.  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, 2009 
5 
 
Jonathan E. Coughlan, Disciplinary Counsel, and Stacy Solochek 
Beckman, Assistant Disciplinary Counsel, for relator. 
______________________