Case Title: Columbus Bar Assn. v. Shea

Citation: 2008-Ohio-263

Docket Number: 20071580

State: ohio

Court: Ohio Supreme Court

Date: 2008-01-30T00:00:00Z

Document:
[Cite as Columbus Bar Assn. v. Shea, 117 Ohio St.3d 55, 2008-Ohio-263.] 
 
 
COLUMBUS BAR ASSOCIATION v. SHEA. 
[Cite as Columbus Bar Assn. v. Shea, 117 Ohio St.3d 55, 2008-Ohio-263.] 
Attorneys at law — Misconduct — Conduct involving dishonesty, fraud, deceit, or 
misrepresentation — Conduct adversely reflecting on the lawyer’s fitness 
to practice law — Failure to disclose lack of professional-liability 
insurance — Public reprimand. 
(No. 2007-1580 – Submitted October 9, 2007 – Decided January 30, 2008.) 
ON CERTIFIED REPORT by the Board of Commissioners on Grievances and 
Discipline of the Supreme Court, No. 07-009. 
__________________ 
 
Per Curiam. 
{¶ 1} Respondent, Robert E. Shea of Columbus, Ohio, Attorney 
Registration No. 0076806, was admitted to the Ohio bar in 2003.  On February 
12, 2007, relator, Columbus Bar Association, filed a complaint charging 
respondent with two violations of the Code of Professional Responsibility.  
Respondent answered the complaint, and a panel of the Board of Commissioners 
on Grievances and Discipline held a hearing on July 17, 2007.  The panel then 
made findings of fact, conclusions of law, and a recommendation, all of which the 
board adopted. 
{¶ 2} The board recommends that we publicly reprimand respondent for 
his disciplinary violations.  We adopt the board’s findings of misconduct and the 
recommended sanction. 
Misconduct 
Count One – Proctor Grievance 
{¶ 3} In 2005, respondent and Dean Masello worked for a law firm in 
Columbus.  In September 2005, respondent and Masello left that firm and formed 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO 
2 
their own firm, Masello & Shea.  When they left their former firm, there was 
considerable animosity between respondent and one of the partners ("former 
employer") of that firm.  Masello & Shea began practicing in the area of crime-
victims-compensation law, directly competing with their former firm, and 
respondent was due payment for work performed while he was with that firm. 
{¶ 4} Respondent and Masello believed that the former employer had 
engaged in unethical and unprofessional conduct, and they attempted to build a 
disciplinary case against him.1  Masello discovered that attorneys could be 
suspended for failure to make child-support payments, and he and respondent 
knew that the former employer was often behind in his child-support payments.  
After searching a Licking County website, Masello found that a child-support 
action was pending against the former employer. 
{¶ 5} On January 3, 2006, Masello traveled to the Licking County Child 
Support Enforcement Agency (“CSEA”) to request a copy of a notice of default 
filed against the former employer for failure to pay child support.  Masello spoke 
with Phillip Proctor, a CSEA attorney, but Proctor refused to give Masello a copy 
of the default notice.  Proctor explained that the notice was confidential and that 
Masello could not get the document unless he was a party to the case or an 
attorney for one of the parties.  Masello returned to Columbus and told respondent 
that he was not able to obtain the default notice. 
{¶ 6} The next day, respondent went to the CSEA and tried to get a copy 
of the default notice.  Respondent falsely told Proctor that he represented the 
former employer’s ex-wife in the child-support litigation.  In addition, respondent 
denied knowing Masello and the former employer.  Suspicious of respondent’s 
story, Proctor refused to give respondent a copy of the default notice.  Proctor 
informed respondent that he would need a form signed by the former employer’s 
                                                 
1. The allegations of unethical and unprofessional conduct concerning the former employer were 
not verified.  
January Term, 2008 
3 
ex-wife or a notice of appearance filed in her case showing that respondent was 
her attorney.  Respondent indicated that he would provide proof that he 
represented the former employer’s ex-wife.  Respondent took no other steps to get 
a copy of the default notice. 
{¶ 7} Proctor subsequently discovered that respondent did not represent 
the former employer’s ex-wife and that respondent had lied about not knowing 
Masello and the former employer.  On advice of Disciplinary Counsel, Proctor 
filed a grievance to report respondent’s conduct as a possible disciplinary 
violation. 
{¶ 8} The board found that respondent had violated DR 1-102(A)(4) 
(prohibiting a lawyer from engaging in conduct involving dishonesty, fraud, 
deceit, or misrepresentation) and 1-102(A)(6) (prohibiting conduct that adversely 
reflects on a lawyer’s fitness to practice law). 
Count Two – Lack of Malpractice Insurance 
{¶ 9} After forming Masello & Shea with Masello, respondent did not 
carry malpractice insurance.  Respondent also failed to notify his clients that he 
was not covered by malpractice insurance. 
{¶ 10} The board found that respondent had thereby violated DR 1-
104(A) (failing to disclose to clients that lawyer does not maintain professional-
liability insurance). 
Recommended Sanction 
{¶ 11} 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.”). 
{¶ 12} As aggravating factors, the board found that respondent had acted 
dishonestly by attempting to mislead Proctor into believing that respondent 
represented the former employer’s ex-wife.  BCGD Proc.Reg. 10(B)(1)(b).  The 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO 
4 
board noted, however, that respondent’s misconduct was short-lived and harmed 
no one.  Cf. BCGD Proc.Reg. 10(B)(1)(h). 
{¶ 13} In mitigation, the board found that respondent had no prior 
disciplinary record and had cooperated fully in the disciplinary proceedings.  
BCGD Proc. Reg. 10(B)(2)(a) and (d).  The board also noted that respondent 
possesses a good reputation in his area of practice and that a number of people 
have attested to his professionalism and competence.  BCGD Proc.Reg. 
10(B)(2)(e). 
{¶ 14} Relator recommended that respondent be suspended from the 
practice of law for six months or one year.  Respondent asked that the panel 
dismiss the complaint.  The panel recommended a public reprimand, and the 
board adopted this recommendation for respondent’s misconduct. 
Review 
{¶ 15} Neither respondent nor relator challenges 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), 1-
102(A)(6), and 1-104(A). 
{¶ 16} We also accept the board’s recommendation of a public reprimand.  
A violation of DR 1-102(A)(4) normally requires an actual suspension from the 
practice of law.  Disciplinary Counsel v. Fumich, 116 Ohio St.3d 257, 2007-Ohio-
6040, 878 N.E.2d 6, ¶ 15.  While we do not condone attorney dishonesty in any 
form, respondent’s misconduct involved only a brief conversation, and he did not 
engage in a course of conduct.  Cf. Disciplinary Counsel v. Fowerbaugh (1995), 
74 Ohio St.3d 187, 190, 658 N.E.2d 237 (a course of conduct resulting in a 
violation of DR 1-102(A)(4) requires an actual suspension).  Moreover, 
respondent’s mitigation evidence weighs against imposing an actual suspension.  
See, e.g., Disciplinary Counsel v. Fumich at ¶ 16-17. 
January Term, 2008 
5 
{¶ 17} Accordingly, respondent is publicly reprimanded for his 
misconduct.  Costs are taxed to respondent. 
Judgment accordingly. 
 
MOYER, 
C.J., 
and 
PFEIFER, 
LUNDBERG 
STRATTON, 
O’CONNOR, 
O’DONNELL, LANZINGER, and CUPP, JJ., concur. 
__________________ 
 
Jason M. Dolin, Bruce A. Campbell, and A. Alysha Clous, for relator. 
 
Dianna M. Anelli, for respondent. 
______________________