Case Title: Disciplinary Counsel v. Shuler

Citation: 2011-Ohio-4198

Docket Number: 

State: ohio

Court: Ohio Supreme Court

Date: 2011-08-30T00:00:00Z

Document:
[Until this opinion appears in the Ohio Official Reports advance sheets, it may be cited as 
Disciplinary Counsel v. Shuler, Slip Opinion No. 2011-Ohio-4198.] 
 
 
 
 
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. 2011-OHIO-4198 
DISCIPLINARY COUNSEL v. SHULER. 
[Until this opinion appears in the Ohio Official Reports advance sheets, it 
may be cited as Disciplinary Counsel v. Shuler,  
Slip Opinion No. 2011-Ohio-4198.] 
(No. 2011-0307 — Submitted April 6, 2011 — Decided August 30, 2011.) 
Attorneys — Misconduct — Multiple violations of Rules of Professional Conduct, 
including failing to keep client informed about the status of a legal matter 
or to cooperate in a disciplinary investigation — Conduct adversely 
reflecting on fitness to practice law — Six-month suspension stayed on 
conditions. 
ON CERTIFIED REPORT by the Board of Commissioners on Grievances and 
Discipline of the Supreme Court, No. 10-077. 
__________________ 
 
Per Curiam. 
{¶ 1} Respondent, Gordon Pearce Shuler, Attorney Registration No. 
0019315, was admitted to the practice of law in Ohio in 1973.  In November 
2010, relator, Disciplinary Counsel, filed a two-count amended complaint 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO 
2 
 
charging respondent with misconduct and violations of the Rules of Professional 
Conduct. 
{¶ 2} The parties filed agreed stipulations and exhibits.  Respondent also 
filed a psychological evaluation and additional character letters that were received 
after the stipulations had been submitted.  Following a hearing, a panel of the 
Board of Commissioners on Grievances and Discipline determined that there was 
clear and convincing evidence that respondent had committed violations of the 
Rules of Professional Conduct and recommended that he receive a six-month 
suspension from the practice of law, with the entire suspension stayed, on the 
condition that he complete a contract with the Ohio Lawyers Assistance Program 
(“OLAP”).  The board agreed with the panel’s findings, conclusions, and 
recommended sanction. 
{¶ 3} We adopt the board’s findings of fact and misconduct, and we 
agree with the recommended sanction.  We therefore suspend respondent’s 
license to practice law in Ohio for six months, with the entire suspension stayed 
on the condition that he successfully complete his three-year OLAP contract. 
Misconduct 
Count One 
{¶ 4} The parties stipulated that in April 2008, Dr. Fredric Gohl retained 
respondent to represent him with regard to five real estate transactions in which 
Gohl believed he had been defrauded.  Gohl paid a $10,000 retainer that 
respondent deposited into his client trust account.  Respondent completed some 
investigative work and spoke with Gohl several times.  In September 2008, 
respondent sent Gohl a billing statement charging him $2,910 for services 
rendered, and respondent withdrew that amount from his client trust account.  
Respondent withdrew another $3,000 from his client trust account in November 
2008, but he did not send his client another billing statement. 
January Term, 2011 
3 
 
{¶ 5} The 
parties 
further 
stipulated 
that 
respondent 
ceased 
communicating with Gohl after February 27, 2009.  Gohl sent respondent two 
letters, in September and October 2009, requesting a status report or the return of 
the balance of his retainer.  Respondent did not respond. 
{¶ 6} The parties also stipulated that respondent did not respond to the 
letter of inquiry from relator regarding a grievance it had received from Gohl.  He 
initially failed to appear for a deposition after he was issued a subpoena by 
relator.  Relator then served respondent with a notice of intent to file a 
disciplinary complaint, and respondent sent a written response in which he 
acknowledged that he had received relator’s letters but had not opened them.  
Respondent also admitted that he had ignored Gohl during his representation.  He 
provided relator with a check for $7,090 from his client trust account as a refund 
of the balance of Gohl’s retainer; relator forwarded the check to Gohl.  
Respondent also informed relator that he had suffered from and had been in 
treatment for clinical depression. 
{¶ 7} Based on these facts, the parties stipulated, and the panel and board 
found, that respondent violated Prof.Cond.R. 1.3 (a lawyer shall act with 
reasonable diligence and promptness in representing a client); 1.4(A)(2), (3), and 
(4) (a lawyer shall reasonably consult with a client concerning the client’s 
objectives, shall keep the client reasonably informed about the status of the 
matter, and shall comply as soon as practicable with reasonable requests for 
information from the client); 1.15(d) (a lawyer shall promptly deliver to a client 
property that the client is entitled to receive); 8.1 (a lawyer shall not knowingly 
fail to respond in a disciplinary investigation); and 8.4(h) (a lawyer shall not 
engage in any other conduct that adversely reflects on the lawyer’s fitness to 
practice law). 
Count Two 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO 
4 
 
{¶ 8} The parties stipulated that beginning in April 2009, respondent 
represented Brett Ayer regarding a claim arising out of defective materials and 
workmanship related to the painting and restoration of a classic car.  No fees were 
agreed upon or paid.  After some initial communications and activity, respondent 
stopped communicating with Ayer.  In September 2009, respondent apologized in 
an e-mail to Ayer for neglecting the file, and he asked Ayer several questions 
about the claim. 
{¶ 9} In November 2009, the Columbus Bar Association sent respondent 
a letter of inquiry regarding a grievance that it had received from Ayer.  
Respondent did not reply to the letter.  Respondent did not respond to several 
telephone calls, letters, and e-mails from an attorney assigned to investigate the 
grievance on behalf of the bar.  Respondent eventually called the attorney on 
March 18, 2010.  He admitted that he had neglected the matter and had not 
responded to the inquiries from the bar association.  He explained that he had 
been in treatment for clinical depression for ten years. 
{¶ 10} Based on these facts, the parties stipulated, and the panel and board 
found, that respondent violated Prof.Cond.R. 1.3; 1.4(A)(2), (3), and (4);  8.1; and 
8.4(h). 
Sanction 
{¶ 11} In considering a sanction for respondent’s misconduct, the panel 
considered the parties’ stipulations that respondent had no prior disciplinary 
record and no dishonest or selfish motive, which are mitigating factors listed in 
Section 10(B)(2) of the Rules and Regulations Governing Procedure on 
Complaints and Hearings Before the Board of Commissioners on Grievances and 
Discipline (“BCGD Proc.Reg.”).  The panel also considered the character-
reference letters and the testimony of character witnesses stating that respondent 
is a highly regarded attorney in the community and that the two matters that gave 
rise to this complaint were an aberration in an otherwise spotless career.  The 
January Term, 2011 
5 
 
panel further noted that the parties stipulated that respondent had been diagnosed 
with depression that contributed to the misconduct, that he had been undergoing 
treatment, and that in January 2011, he had entered into a three-year OLAP 
contract to monitor his continued progress.  The parties stipulated, and the panel 
found, that there were no aggravating factors. 
{¶ 12} Respondent recommended, and relator agreed, that he receive a 
six-month suspension from the practice of law, with the entire suspension stayed 
on the condition that he successfully complete his three-year contract with OLAP.  
The panel agreed, and the board adopted the panel’s recommendation.  We agree. 
{¶ 13} A six-month suspension, stayed on the condition of compliance 
with an OLAP contract, is an appropriate sanction for a lawyer who has neglected 
client matters.  Cuyahoga Cty. Bar Assn. v. Rutherford, 112 Ohio St.3d 159, 
2006-Ohio-6526, 858 N.E.2d 417 (six-month suspension of attorney who 
neglected client matters stayed on conditions including entering a recovery 
contract with OLAP).  See also Disciplinary Counsel v. Chambers, 125 Ohio 
St.3d 414, 2010-Ohio-1809, 928 N.E.2d 1061 (one-year suspension for neglect of 
legal matters and failure to respond to disciplinary investigation stayed on 
conditions including that the attorney complete an OLAP contract). 
{¶ 14} Accordingly, we suspend respondent’s license to practice law in 
Ohio for six months, with the entire suspension stayed on the conditions that he 
successfully complete his three-year OLAP contract and that he commit no 
further misconduct.  If respondent fails to comply with the conditions of the stay, 
the stay shall be lifted, and respondent shall serve the full six-month suspension.  
Costs are taxed to respondent. 
Judgment accordingly. 
O’CONNOR, C.J., and PFEIFER, LUNDBERG STRATTON, O’DONNELL, 
LANZINGER, CUPP, and MCGEE BROWN, JJ., concur. 
__________________ 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO 
6 
 
 
Jonathan E. Coughlan, Disciplinary Counsel, and Carol A. Costa, 
Assistant Disciplinary Counsel, for relator. 
 
Kegler, Brown, Hill & Ritter, and Geoffrey Stern, for respondent. 
______________________