Case Title: Disciplinary Counsel v. Butler

Citation: 1999-Ohio-428

Docket Number: 19982212

State: ohio

Court: Ohio Supreme Court

Date: 1999-03-17T00:00:00Z

Document:
OFFICE OF DISCIPLINARY COUNSEL v. BUTLER. 
[Cite as Disciplinary Counsel v. Butler (1999), ___ Ohio St.3d ___.] 
Attorneys at law — Misconduct — Public reprimand — Withdrawing from 
employment without taking reasonable steps to avoid foreseeable 
prejudice to rights of client. 
(No. 98-2212 — Submitted December 16, 1998 — Decided March 3, 1999.) 
ON CERTIFIED REPORT by the Board of Commissioners on Grievances and 
Discipline of the Supreme Court, No. 98-6. 
 
In July 1995, Anna R. Waddell hired respondent, Jackie L. Butler, now 
residing in Indianapolis, Indiana, Attorney Registration No. 0039012, to represent 
her in a divorce proceeding in Ohio.  At the final hearing in November 1995, 
counsel to Waddell’s former spouse read into the record an agreement that was to 
be incorporated into the final decree.  The agreement, as read into the record, was 
approved by Waddell. 
 
In January 1996, respondent wrote to Waddell, stating that she was 
resigning from the law firm in which she had practiced and that, if Waddell 
consented, respondent would arrange for another attorney from the firm to take 
over representation of Waddell.  However, respondent never arranged for other 
counsel and never specifically told Waddell that she was withdrawing. 
 
In February 1996, respondent filed a motion with the court to withdraw as 
Waddell’s counsel, serving a copy on opposing counsel but not on Waddell.  
Respondent’s motion cited deterioration of the attorney-client relationship, 
Waddell’s failure to contact respondent with respect to the final decree, and 
Waddell’s failure to pay respondent.  On February 23, 1996, the day after the court 
entered an order approving respondent’s withdrawal as counsel, it entered a 
judgment entry and decree of divorce that varied from the proposed judgment 
 
2
entry previously read into the record and agreed to by Waddell and her former 
spouse.  Respondent and counsel for Waddell’s former spouse agreed that it was a 
matter of mutual mistake that the proposed agreement previously read into the 
record was in error. 
 
Waddell hired another attorney to represent her with respect to the final 
decree, but the court denied the new counsel’s motion for relief from judgment.  
That denial was affirmed on appeal.  Waddell then filed a grievance against 
respondent with the Dayton Bar Association.  The bar association filed a 
complaint charging, among other things, that respondent’s conduct violated DR  2-
110(A)(2) (a lawyer shall not withdraw from employment unless he or she has 
taken reasonable steps to avoid foreseeable prejudice to his or her client, including 
giving notice and allowing time for employment of other counsel).  Subsequently, 
relator, Disciplinary Counsel, was substituted for the bar association as relator. 
 
After respondent answered, the matter was submitted on stipulated facts to a 
panel of the Board of Commissioners on Grievances and Discipline of the 
Supreme Court (“board”).  The panel concluded that respondent had violated the 
Disciplinary Rule as charged and recommended that respondent be publicly 
reprimanded.  The board adopted the findings, conclusions, and recommendation 
of the panel. 
__________________ 
 
Jonathan E. Coughlan, Disciplinary Counsel, and John K. McManus, 
Assistant Disciplinary Counsel, for relator. 
 
Kegler, Brown, Hill & Ritter and Geoffrey Stern, for respondent. 
__________________ 
 
3
 
Per Curiam.  We adopt the board’s findings, conclusions, and 
recommendation.  Respondent is hereby publicly reprimanded.  Costs are taxed to 
respondent. 
Judgment accordingly. 
 
MOYER, C.J., DOUGLAS, RESNICK, F.E. SWEENEY, PFEIFER, COOK and 
LUNDBERG STRATTON, JJ., concur.