Case Title: Allen Cty. Bar Assn. v. Sabol

Citation: 1997-Ohio-141

Docket Number: 19970807

State: ohio

Court: Ohio Supreme Court

Date: 1997-09-24T00:00:00Z

Document:
ALLEN COUNTY BAR ASSOCIATION V. SABOL. 
[Cite as Allen Cty. Bar Assn. v. Sabol (1997), ___ Ohio St.3d ___.] 
Attorneys at law — Misconduct — Public reprimand — Failing to seek 
lawful objectives of a client — Failing to carry out contract of 
employment. 
 
(No. 97-807 — Submitted June 11, 1997 — Decided September 24, 1997.) 
 
ON CERTIFIED REPORT by the Board of Commissioners on Grievances and 
Discipline of the Supreme Court, No. 96-27. 
 
On April 15, 1996, relator, Allen County Bar Association, filed a complaint 
alleging that respondent, John A. Sabol of Lima, Ohio, Attorney Registration No. 
0019637, violated several Disciplinary Rules by dismissing a personal injury case 
with prejudice.  After respondent filed his answer and the parties filed agreed 
stipulations and exhibits, a panel of the Board of Commissioners on Grievances 
and Discipline of the Supreme Court (“board”) found the following facts. 
 
Respondent agreed to represent Kathy Thompson and her minor daughter, 
Bri Thompson (“Thompsons”), in a personal injury case arising out of an 
automobile accident which occurred on October 4, 1989, for a contingent fee of 
one third of the recovery. 
 
On October 3, 1991, respondent filed a complaint in common pleas court for 
Kathy Thompson and Bri Thompson based upon the accident.  On March 16, 
1992, he dismissed the complaint without prejudice and notified the Thompsons 
that he was doing so because their treating physician had declined to cooperate.  
At that time respondent also notified the Thompsons that they had one year from 
the date of the dismissal to refile the case or lose their rights against the defendant. 
 
2
 
Respondent asserts that the Thompsons agreed to place $2,000 in trust for 
the purpose of paying the costs of litigation, including taking depositions, but the 
Thompsons never delivered this money to respondent. 
 
On March 15, 1993, to protect the statutory rights of Kathy and Bri 
Thompson, respondent refiled the personal injury complaint within one year of the 
previous dismissal, and once again requested that the Thompsons either place 
$2,000 in trust for expenses or find another attorney.  On January 14, 1994 
respondent dismissed the complaint because (1) Kathy Thompson and her 
husband, John, had filed for bankruptcy and any recovery over the $5,000 
exemption claimed for the personal injury case would have to be “reported” to 
their trustee, and (2) the Thompsons refused to place $2,000 in escrow for 
litigation expenses as respondent had requested and also refused to find other 
counsel.  Respondent alleged that he had informed the Thompsons that if the 
money were not placed in trust, their case would be dismissed. 
 
The panel concluded that respondent violated DR 7-101(A)(1) (failing to 
seek the lawful objectives of a client) and 7-101(A)(2) (failing to carry out a 
contract of employment) because he inappropriately dismissed Kathy Thompson’s 
personal injury case with prejudice and Bri Thompson’s case without prejudice.  
The panel suggested that an appropriate alternative would have been to notify the 
trial court of the problem and to move to withdraw as counsel of record.  The 
panel recommended that respondent receive a public reprimand in view of 
respondent’s lack of previous disciplinary problems, his reputation as competent 
counsel, and the fact that Bri Thompson released him from any claims she might 
have as a result of the dismissal.  The board adopted the findings, conclusions, and 
recommendation of the panel. 
__________________ 
 
3
 
Jerry M. Johnson and James E. Meredith, for relator. 
 
John A. Sabol, pro se. 
__________________ 
 
Per Curiam. As a result of an automobile accident on October 4, 1989, 
Kathy and Bri Thompson engaged respondent to represent them in pursuing their 
personal injury claims.  On June 6, 1990, Kathy Thompson filed a bankruptcy 
petition and consequently her interest in her personal injury claim was limited to 
her claimed exemption.  Despite the limitation on Kathy Thompson’s recovery and 
despite the fact that the Thompsons failed to advance the requested costs and 
expenses, once having filed the case, respondent should not have taken unilateral 
action to dismiss it.  Instead, respondent should have asked the trial court for 
permission to withdraw as counsel.  We therefore adopt the findings, conclusions, 
and recommendations of the board, and 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.