Case Title: Wood Cty. Bar Assn. v. Driftmyer

Citation: 2018-Ohio-5094

Docket Number: 2018-0811

State: ohio

Court: Ohio Supreme Court

Date: 2018-12-20T00:00:00Z

Document:
[Until this opinion appears in the Ohio Official Reports advance sheets, it may be cited as 
Wood Cty. Bar Assn. v. Driftmyer, Slip Opinion No. 2018-Ohio-5094.] 
 
 
 
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. 2018-OHIO-5094 
WOOD COUNTY BAR ASSOCIATION v. DRIFTMYER. 
[Until this opinion appears in the Ohio Official Reports advance sheets, it 
may be cited as Wood Cty. Bar Assn. v. Driftmyer, Slip Opinion No.  
2018-Ohio-5094.] 
Attorneys—Misconduct—Violations of the Rules of Professional Conduct, 
including failing to act with reasonable diligence in representing a client, 
failing to inform a client that the lawyer does not maintain professional-
liability insurance, and failing to respond to a demand for information from 
a disciplinary authority—Six-month suspension stayed on conditions. 
(No. 2018-0811—Submitted July 18, 2018—Decided December 20, 2018.) 
ON CERTIFIED REPORT by the Board of Professional Conduct of the Supreme 
Court, No. 2017-012. 
_______________________ 
Per Curiam. 
{¶ 1} Respondent, Sarah Ann Miller Driftmyer, of Toledo, Ohio, Attorney 
Registration No. 0089222, was admitted to the practice of law in Ohio in 2012. 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO 
 
2
{¶ 2} In a March 2017 complaint, relator, Wood County Bar Association, 
charged Driftmyer with ethical misconduct related to the neglect of a single client’s 
criminal matter.  Relator alleged that Driftmyer failed to provide competent 
representation to the client, act with reasonable diligence, notify the client that she 
did not carry professional-liability insurance, deposit the client’s unearned fee into 
a client trust account, retain a copy of the executed fee contract, and cooperate in 
the ensuing disciplinary investigation.  The parties submitted stipulated exhibits, 
agreed that Driftmyer committed all but one of the alleged rule violations, and 
suggested that Driftmyer should be suspended from the practice of law for six 
months, all stayed on conditions. 
{¶ 3} After conducting a hearing, a panel of the Board of Professional 
Conduct made findings of fact and adopted the parties’ stipulations of misconduct, 
aggravating and mitigating factors, and their recommended sanction.  The panel 
also unanimously dismissed an alleged violation of Prof.Cond.R. 1.1 (requiring a 
lawyer to provide competent representation to a client) noting that the parties did 
not stipulate to that violation.  The board adopted the panel’s findings of fact, 
conclusions of law, and recommended sanction with one additional condition—that 
Driftmyer serve a one-year term of monitored probation.  No objections have been 
filed. 
{¶ 4} Based on our independent review of the record, we adopt the board’s 
findings of misconduct and agree that a six-month suspension stayed in its entirety 
on the conditions recommended by the board is the appropriate sanction in this case. 
Misconduct 
{¶ 5} Driftmyer began working at the Lucas County Public Defender’s 
Office as a student extern in May 2010.  She continued to serve as a certified intern 
during her final year of law school and remained as a paid intern and contract 
attorney following her graduation.  She accepted a full-time position with the office 
in early 2014 and held that position until she resigned in April 2016.  During her 
January Term, 2018 
 
3
employment with the public defender’s office, Driftmyer also maintained a private 
legal practice. 
{¶ 6} In December 2014, Ronald Jason Doogs retained Driftmyer to defend 
him against criminal charges that included rape.  He paid the agreed fee of $5,000 
in two installments and gave Driftmyer an additional $3,200 to pay for a private 
investigator.  The case proceeded to a jury trial.  Following his conviction, Doogs 
filed a grievance against Driftmyer alleging that she provided ineffective assistance 
of counsel. 
{¶ 7} During Driftmyer’s disciplinary hearing, Doogs testified by 
videoconference from prison and complained that she did not adequately prepare 
for his trial.  He stated that he met with Driftmyer on eight to ten occasions and had 
one significant telephone conversation regarding her communications with the 
prosecutor before trial.  And although he gave her $3,200 to hire a private 
investigator, Doogs testified that she never retained one.  Doogs also reported that 
Driftmyer interviewed his witnesses at his parents’ home for about an hour “months 
and months before the trial,” but that she never met with them again.  Moreover, 
she waited until 4:00 or 4:30 p.m. the day before trial to subpoena Doogs’s 
witnesses—and she had Doogs serve them himself. 
{¶ 8} As part of Doogs’s grievance, he submitted an affidavit that Driftmyer 
had executed in support of his petition for postconviction relief.  It was not dated, 
but Driftmyer testified that she signed it in March 2016. 
{¶ 9} In that affidavit, Driftmyer stated that she had never tried a rape case 
to a jury before accepting Doogs’s case.  In her affidavit and testimony before the 
panel, she also admitted that she was not adequately prepared to defend him and 
gave numerous examples to demonstrate the deficiencies in her representation.  For 
example, Driftmyer acknowledged that she did not present any rebuttal evidence at 
a pretrial hearing regarding the admissibility of statements made by a deceased 
declarant because she was not aware that she would have the opportunity to do so.  
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO 
 
4
She also admitted that she waited until five days before trial to mail subpoenas to 
the Wood County Sheriff’s Department with instructions to personally serve them 
on her witnesses.  And she failed to subpoena several police officers and children-
services investigators who purportedly made inconsistent statements about the case 
because she expected the state to call them as witnesses.  In her affidavit, Driftmyer 
acknowledged that her failure to disclose crucial witnesses to the state resulted in 
the exclusion of testimony from key witnesses.  And she admitted that she did not 
prepare any of her witnesses for trial—including Doogs, who testified in his own 
defense. 
{¶ 10} Driftmyer averred that just two weeks before Doogs’s trial, she 
employed another attorney for the limited purpose of objecting to evidence at trial.  
But even with that assistance, Driftmyer admitted that she failed to effectively 
cross-examine and impeach the state’s witnesses.  She also averred that she was so 
intimidated by the prosecutor’s continuous objections that she forgot to question 
her own witnesses about important facts, and that ultimately, her lack of preparation 
resulted in the failure to present valid defenses to the charges against her client. 
{¶ 11} In addition to the facts set forth in her March 2016 affidavit, 
Driftmyer admitted that she did not maintain professional-liability insurance or 
notify Doogs of that fact in a separate writing.  Although she testified that she 
entered into a written fee agreement with Doogs, she has failed to produce a signed 
copy of that agreement.  She also stipulated that she did not deposit $2,500 of his 
fee into her client trust account and hold it there until the fee was earned.  Driftmyer 
confirmed that she did not respond to relator’s first letter of inquiry and failed to 
provide requested information regarding her client trust account.  In her testimony 
before the panel, she explained that she was nonresponsive because she had been 
focused on refuting jailhouse rumors that she had been paid in drugs and was 
smuggling contraband into the county jail. 
January Term, 2018 
 
5
{¶ 12} The parties stipulated and the board found that Driftmyer’s conduct 
violated Prof.Cond.R. 1.3 (requiring a lawyer to act with reasonable diligence in 
representing a client), 1.4(c) (requiring a lawyer to inform the client if the lawyer 
does not maintain professional-liability insurance and obtain a signed 
acknowledgment of that notice from the client), 1.15(a) (requiring a lawyer to hold 
the property of clients in an interest bearing client trust account, separate from the 
lawyer’s own property), 1.15(a)(1) (requiring a lawyer to maintain a copy of any 
fee agreement with each client), and 8.1(b) (prohibiting a lawyer from failing to 
disclose a material fact or from knowingly failing to respond in response to a 
demand for information from a disciplinary authority).  We accept these findings 
of fact and misconduct. 
Sanction 
{¶ 13} When imposing sanctions for attorney misconduct, we consider 
several relevant factors, including the ethical duties the lawyer violated, the 
aggravating and mitigating factors listed in Gov.Bar R. V(13), and the sanctions 
imposed in similar cases.  However, because each disciplinary case is unique, we 
are not limited to these specific factors and may take all relevant factors into 
account when determining which sanction to impose in any particular case.  
Columbus Bar Assn. v. Watson, 144 Ohio St.3d 317, 2015-Ohio-4613, 42 N.E.3d 
752, ¶ 7. 
{¶ 14} As aggravating factors, the parties stipulated and the board found 
that Driftmyer committed multiple offenses and demonstrated a lack of cooperation 
in the disciplinary process.  See Gov.Bar R. V(13)(B)(4) and (5).  Mitigating factors 
include the absence of a prior disciplinary record, the absence of a dishonest or 
selfish motive, and evidence of Driftmyer’s good character and reputation.  See 
Gov.Bar R. V(13)(C)(1), (2), and (5). 
{¶ 15} One of Driftmyer’s character references was an attorney with 28 
years of criminal-defense experience who began serving as her mentor 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO 
 
6
approximately 18 months before her disciplinary hearing.  He reported that he 
communicates with Driftmyer almost daily and meets with her about once a week 
to discuss issues that have included professionalism, punctuality, preparation, client 
control, time management, and the need to maintain a client trust account, 
professional-liability insurance, and a reliable support staff. 
{¶ 16} The panel recommended that we adopt the parties’ stipulated 
sanction of a six-month suspension, all stayed on the conditions that Driftmyer (1) 
submit to a substance-abuse and mental-health assessment conducted by the Ohio 
Lawyers Assistance Program (“OLAP”) and comply with all treatment 
recommendations arising from that assessment, (2) establish and consistently 
utilize a client trust account, (3) acquire professional-liability insurance, or 
formulate and consistently utilize a separate form to notify her clients that she does 
not carry such insurance, (4) complete a minimum of 12 hours of continuing legal 
education (“CLE”) in the area of criminal-trial practice and 6 hours of CLE in the 
area of law-practice management, and (5) engage in no further misconduct.  The 
board recommends that we adopt that sanction with the additional condition that 
Driftmyer serve a one-year term of monitored probation pursuant to Gov.Bar R. 
V(21). 
{¶ 17} In support of that recommendation, the board considered several 
cases in which we imposed six-month conditionally-stayed suspensions on 
attorneys whose misconduct was akin to that of Driftmyer. 
{¶ 18} In Dayton Bar Assn. v. Hooks, 139 Ohio St.3d 462, 2014-Ohio-2596, 
12 N.E.3d 1212, an attorney neglected a client’s child-support and custody matter, 
failed to reasonably communicate with the client, and failed to cooperate in the 
ensuing disciplinary investigation.  Although Hooks committed multiple offenses, 
we found that they related to just one client and that Hooks had no prior discipline, 
acted without a dishonest or selfish motive, and accepted responsibility for his 
misconduct.  Id. at ¶ 12.  He also explained that at the time of his misconduct, he 
January Term, 2018 
 
7
was working at a new firm with no support staff and was dealing with personal 
issues.  Id. at ¶ 13.  We suspended Hooks from the practice of law for six months, 
but stayed the entire suspension on conditions that he complete 12 hours of CLE in 
law-office management, submit to an evaluation by OLAP and comply with any 
treatment recommendations, and complete a one-year mentoring program.  Id. at  
¶ 18. 
{¶ 19} In Mahoning Cty. Bar Assn. v. Malvasi, 143 Ohio St.3d 140, 2015-
Ohio-2361, 34 N.E.3d 916, the attorney neglected a single client’s civil matter over 
an 11-month period, failed to deposit the client’s retainer into his trust account, 
failed to keep the client reasonably informed about the status of his matter, and 
failed to promptly comply with the client’s reasonable requests for information.  No 
aggravating factors were present.  However, relevant mitigating factors included 
the absence of a dishonest or selfish motive, Malvasi’s good-faith effort to make 
restitution and rectify the consequences of his misconduct, his cooperation with the 
disciplinary proceedings, and evidence of his good character and reputation.  Id. at 
¶ 6.  We also noted that he had suffered from health problems and had primary 
responsibility for the care of his elderly mother.  Id.  We suspended Malvasi for six 
months, stayed on the condition that he commit no further misconduct, and we 
required him to serve a one-year term of monitored probation and attend a law-
office-management seminar.  Id. at ¶ 10. 
{¶ 20} We also imposed a six-month stayed suspension in Disciplinary 
Counsel v. Shuler, 129 Ohio St.3d 509, 2011-Ohio-4198, 954 N.E.2d 593, for an 
attorney’s neglect of civil matters on behalf of two clients, failure to reasonably 
communicate with the affected clients, and failure to cooperate in the ensuing 
disciplinary investigations.  Id. at ¶ 4-10.  Shuler had no prior disciplinary record 
and did not act with a dishonest or selfish motive.  He also presented evidence of 
his good character and established that his diagnosed depression contributed to the 
misconduct.  Id. at ¶ 11.  On those facts, we suspended him for six months with the 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO 
 
8
entire suspension stayed on the conditions that he successfully complete a three-
year OLAP contract and commit no further misconduct.  Id. at ¶ 14. 
{¶ 21} Here, the record clearly and convincingly demonstrates that 
Driftmyer failed to diligently represent a single client, and that she did not possess 
the requisite organizational skills to maintain and utilize a client trust account, 
inform her clients that she did not carry malpractice insurance, or timely respond 
to relator’s initial letter of inquiry.  But it also shows that Driftmyer quickly and 
candidly admitted many of those deficiencies to support Doogs’s petition for 
postconviction relief and sought an experienced mentor to advise her going 
forward.  Based on these facts and the record before us, we agree that a six-month 
suspension, all stayed on the conditions recommended by the board, is the 
appropriate sanction in this case. 
{¶ 22} Accordingly, Sarah Ann Miller Driftmyer is suspended from the 
practice of law in Ohio for six months, with the entire suspension stayed on the 
conditions that she (1) submit to a substance-abuse and mental-health assessment 
conducted by OLAP and comply with all treatment recommendations arising from 
that assessment, (2) establish and consistently utilize a client trust account, (3) 
acquire professional-liability insurance, or formulate and consistently utilize a 
separate form to notify her clients that she does not carry such insurance, as required 
by Prof.Cond.R. 1.4(c), (4) complete a minimum of 12 hours of CLE in the area of 
criminal-trial practice and 6 hours of CLE in the area of law-office management, 
(5) engage in no further misconduct, and (6) serve a one-year term of monitored 
probation pursuant to Gov.Bar R. V(21).  If Driftmyer fails to comply with the 
conditions of the stay, the stay will be lifted, and she will serve the entire six-month 
suspension.  Costs are taxed to Driftmyer. 
Judgment accordingly. 
O’CONNOR, C.J., and O’DONNELL, FRENCH, FISCHER, DEWINE, and 
DEGENARO, JJ., concur. 
January Term, 2018 
 
9
KENNEDY, J., would not order respondent to submit to an evaluation by the 
Ohio Lawyers Assistance Program, but otherwise joins the opinion and sanction 
imposed. 
_________________ 
Stearns & Hammer, and James A. Hammer; and Thomas E. Teet, Bar 
Counsel, for relator. 
Mitchell Law, L.L.C., and Richard A. Mitchell, for respondent. 
_________________