Case Title: Columbus Bar Assn. v. Smith

Citation: 2015-Ohio-2000

Docket Number: 2014-1741

State: ohio

Court: Ohio Supreme Court

Date: 2015-05-27T00:00:00Z

Document:
[Until this opinion appears in the Ohio Official Reports advance sheets, it may be cited as 
Columbus Bar Assn. v. Smith, Slip Opinion No. 2015-Ohio-2000.] 
 
 
 
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. 2015-OHIO-2000 
COLUMBUS BAR ASSOCIATION v. SMITH. 
[Until this opinion appears in the Ohio Official Reports advance sheets, it 
may be cited as Columbus Bar Assn. v. Smith, Slip Opinion  
No. 2015-Ohio-2000.] 
Attorneys at law—Misconduct—Violations of the Rules of Professional Conduct, 
including failing to keep clients reasonably informed about the status of 
their matters—Public reprimand. 
(No. 2014-1741—Submitted January 14, 2015—Decided May 27, 2015.) 
ON CERTIFIED REPORT by the Board of Commissioners on Grievances and 
Discipline of the Supreme Court, No. 2013-061. 
_______________________ 
Per Curiam. 
{¶ 1} Respondent, Gloria Lynn Smith of Columbus, Ohio, Attorney 
Registration No. 0061231, was admitted to the practice of law in Ohio in 1993.  
On November 14, 2013, relator, Columbus Bar Association, charged Smith with 
professional misconduct, alleging that she had failed to act with reasonable 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO 
 
2
diligence in representing a client, failed to reasonably communicate with the 
client, and failed to take reasonable steps to protect the client’s interest upon her 
withdrawal from the representation.  Smith and relator subsequently submitted 
joint stipulations of fact, violations, aggravating and mitigating factors, and 
reference letters and recommended that Smith be publicly reprimanded for her 
misconduct.  A panel of the Board of Commissioners on Grievances and 
Discipline1 unanimously accepted the parties’ stipulations and recommended 
sanction, and the board adopted the panel report in its entirety. 
{¶ 2} We adopt the parties’ stipulations of fact and misconduct and 
publicly reprimand Smith. 
Misconduct 
{¶ 3} The board summarized Smith’s misconduct as failing to fulfill her 
obligations as counsel in the representation of two brothers in their respective 
habeas corpus cases.  Although she promised to meet with the brothers to discuss 
their cases, she failed to do so. 
{¶ 4} One of the brothers had filed a pro se petition for a writ of habeas 
corpus before Smith was hired, and the federal district court granted Smith an 
extension of time to file a response to a pleading in the action.  However, Smith 
filed the response one day late and failed to present all of the client’s claims. 
{¶ 5} Smith did not timely inform her client of a magistrate’s report and 
recommendation that concluded that the habeas corpus petition should be denied 
and that the judge should not grant a certificate of appealability.  Nor did she 
provide him with a copy of the ruling.  The district court judge denied the petition 
and refused to issue a certificate of appealability.  Smith nonetheless obtained her 
client’s authorization to appeal the ruling and filed a notice of appeal.  But she did 
                                                 
1 Effective January 1, 2015, the Board of Commissioners on Grievances and Discipline has been 
renamed the Board of Professional Conduct.  See Gov.Bar R. V(1)(A), 140 Ohio St.3d CII. 
 
January Term, 2015 
 
3
not respond to the client’s inquiries regarding the status of the appeal or his 
requests for a copy of the certificate of appealability.  On August 27, 2012, the 
client wrote to Smith requesting that she either respond to his inquiries or send 
him a copy of her motion to withdraw within ten days.  She moved to withdraw as 
counsel on September 15, 2012, but she did not send her client a copy of the 
motion or take any steps to protect his interests upon filing her motion. 
{¶ 6} Smith has admitted and the board has found that her conduct 
violated the following: Prof.Cond.R. 1.3 (requiring a lawyer to act with 
reasonable diligence in representing a client), 1.4(a)(2) (requiring a lawyer to 
reasonably consult with the client about the means by which the client’s 
objectives are to be accomplished), 1.4(a)(3) (requiring a lawyer to keep the client 
reasonably informed about the status of a matter), 1.4(a)(4) (requiring a lawyer to 
comply as soon as practicable with reasonable requests for information from the 
client), and 1.16(d) (requiring a lawyer withdrawing from representation to take 
steps reasonably practicable to protect a client’s interest). 
Sanction 
{¶ 7} When imposing sanctions for attorney misconduct, we consider 
relevant factors, including the ethical duties that the lawyer violated and the 
sanctions imposed in similar cases.  Stark Cty. Bar Assn. v. Buttacavoli, 96 Ohio 
St.3d 424, 2002-Ohio-4743, 775 N.E.2d 818, ¶ 16.  In making a final 
determination, we also weigh evidence of the aggravating and mitigating factors 
listed in BCGD Proc.Reg. 10(B).  Disciplinary Counsel v. Broeren, 115 Ohio 
St.3d 473, 2007-Ohio-5251, 875 N.E.2d 935, ¶ 21.2 
{¶ 8} The parties stipulated, and the board agreed, that the relevant 
mitigating factors include the absence of a prior disciplinary record, the absence 
                                                 
2 Effective January 1, 2015, the aggravating and mitigating factors previously set forth in BCGD 
Proc.Reg. 10(B)(1) and (2) are codified in Gov.Bar R. V(13), 140 Ohio St.3d CXXIV. 
 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO 
 
4
of a dishonest or selfish motive, Smith’s full and free disclosure to the board and 
her cooperative attitude toward the disciplinary proceedings, evidence of her good 
character and reputation apart from the charged misconduct, and her 
acknowledgment and acceptance of full responsibility before the complaint was 
filed.  See BCGD Proc.Reg. 10(B)(2)(a), (b), (d), and (e).  Additionally, the 
parties stipulated and the board found that no client was harmed by Smith’s 
conduct.  None of the aggravating factors set forth in BCGD Proc.Reg. 10(B)(1) 
are present. 
{¶ 9} Based upon Smith’s misconduct and the mitigating factors present, 
the parties agreed that the appropriate sanction is a public reprimand.  The board 
agreed and cited Columbus Bar Assn. v. Adusei, 136 Ohio St.3d 155, 2013-Ohio-
3125, 991 N.E.2d 1142 (publicly reprimanding an attorney who charged an 
excessive fee to a vulnerable client), and Toledo Bar Assn. v. Hetzer, 137 Ohio 
St.3d 572, 2013-Ohio-5480, 2 N.E.3d 247 (publicly reprimanding an attorney 
who committed several client-trust-account violations that did not cause financial 
harm to his client or other interested persons). 
{¶ 10} We adopt the stipulations of the parties and find that Smith’s 
conduct violated Prof.Cond.R. 1.3, 1.4(a)(2), 1.4(a)(3), 1.4(a)(4), and 1.16(d).  
Because we have imposed public reprimands for comparable misconduct in the 
past, we agree that a public reprimand is the appropriate sanction in this case.  
See, e.g., Disciplinary Counsel v. Dundon, 129 Ohio St.3d 571, 2011-Ohio-4199, 
954 N.E.2d 1186 (publicly reprimanding an attorney who failed to act with 
reasonable diligence and promptness in representing a client, failed to reasonably 
consult with a client and keep the client reasonably informed about the status of 
the client’s legal matter, and failed to comply with the client’s reasonable requests 
for information), and Lake Cty. Bar Assn. v. Kubyn, 121 Ohio St.3d 321, 2009-
Ohio-1154, 903 N.E.2d 1215 (publicly reprimanding an attorney who failed to 
take reasonably practicable steps to protect the client’s interests and failed to 
January Term, 2015 
 
5
promptly return the unearned portion of his fee after the client had discharged 
him). 
{¶ 11} Accordingly, Gloria Lynn Smith is hereby publicly reprimanded 
for her misconduct.  Costs are taxed to Smith. 
Judgment accordingly. 
O’CONNOR, C.J., and PFEIFER, O’DONNELL, LANZINGER, KENNEDY, 
FRENCH, and O’NEILL, JJ., concur. 
__________________ 
The Baker Law Group and Andrew Baker; James E. Arnold & Associates, 
L.P.A., and David Winters; and Bruce A. Campbell, Bar Counsel, and A. Alysha 
Clous, Assistant Bar Counsel, for relator. 
Chuparkoff & Junga, L.L.P., Mark A. Chuparkoff, and Christopher T. 
Junga, for respondent. 
______________________