Case Title: Columbus Bar Assn. v. Ryan

Citation: 2015-Ohio-2069

Docket Number: 2014-1742

State: ohio

Court: Ohio Supreme Court

Date: 2015-06-02T00:00:00Z

Document:
[Until this opinion appears in the Ohio Official Reports advance sheets, it may be cited as 
Columbus Bar Assn. v. Ryan, Slip Opinion No. 2015-Ohio-2069.] 
 
 
 
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. 2015-OHIO-2069 
COLUMBUS BAR ASSOCIATION v. RYAN. 
[Until this opinion appears in the Ohio Official Reports advance sheets, it 
may be cited as Columbus Bar Assn. v. Ryan, Slip Opinion No. 2015-Ohio-
2069.] 
Attorneys at law—Misconduct—Failure to act with reasonable diligence—Failure 
to reasonably communicate with client—Public reprimand. 
(No. 2014-1742—Submitted January 14, 2015—Decided June 2, 2015.) 
ON CERTIFIED REPORT by the Board of Commissioners on Grievances and 
Discipline of the Supreme Court, No. 2014-042. 
_______________________ 
Per Curiam. 
{¶ 1} Respondent, Corinne Noelle Ryan of Gahanna, Ohio, Attorney 
Registration No. 0066393, was admitted to the practice of law in Ohio in 1996.  
On June 9, 2014, relator, Columbus Bar Association, charged Ryan with 
professional misconduct in two separate client matters.  Relator alleged that in a 
child-custody matter, Ryan was difficult to contact and took over two months to 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO 
 
2
file custody papers with the court, even though she represented to the client that 
the papers had been filed.  In addition, relator claimed that in a divorce 
proceeding, Ryan failed to timely file a qualified domestic-relations order and 
failed to communicate with the client. 
{¶ 2} A panel of the Board of Commissioners on Grievances and 
Discipline1 considered the cause on the parties’ consent-to-discipline agreement.  
See BCGD Proc.Reg. 11.2   
{¶ 3} In the consent-to-discipline agreement, Ryan stipulates to many of 
the facts alleged in relator’s complaint and agrees that her conduct violated 
Prof.Cond.R. 1.3 (requiring a lawyer to act with reasonable diligence in 
representing a client) and 1.4 (requiring a lawyer to reasonably communicate with 
a client).  Relator agrees to dismiss for insufficient evidence the alleged violations 
of Prof.Cond.R. 1.1 (requiring a lawyer to provide competent representation to a 
client) and 8.4(h) (prohibiting a lawyer from engaging in conduct that adversely 
reflects on the lawyer’s fitness to practice law). 
{¶ 4} The parties stipulate that the mitigating factors include the absence 
of a prior disciplinary record, the absence of a dishonest or selfish motive, Ryan’s 
cooperative attitude toward the disciplinary proceedings, and evidence of her 
good character or reputation.  See BCGD Proc.Reg. 10(B)(2)(a), (b), (d), and (e).3  
The parties agree that the aggravating factors include a pattern of misconduct and 
multiple offenses. See BCGD Proc.Reg. 10(B)(1)(c) and (d).  Based upon Ryan’s 
stipulated misconduct and these factors, the parties stipulate that the appropriate 
sanction is a public reprimand. 
                                                 
1 Effective January 1, 2015, the Board of Commissioners on Grievances and Discipline has been 
renamed the Board of Professional Conduct.  See Gov.Bar R. V(1)(A), 140 Ohio St.3d CII. 
2  Effective January 1, 2015, Gov.Bar R. V(16), 140 Ohio St.3d CXXX, governs consent-to-
discipline agreements. 
3 Effective January 1, 2015, the aggravating and mitigating factors previously set forth in BCGD 
Proc.Reg. 10(B) are codified in Gov.Bar R. V(13), 140 Ohio St.3d CXXIV. 
January Term, 2015 
 
3
{¶ 5} The panel and board found that the consent-to-discipline agreement 
conforms to BCGD Proc.Reg. 11 and recommend that we adopt the agreement in 
its entirety.  The parties cite two cases in which we publicly reprimanded 
attorneys who engaged in comparable misconduct: Columbus Bar Assn. v. Bhatt, 
133 Ohio St.3d 131, 2012-Ohio-4230, 976 N.E.2d 870 (publicly reprimanding an 
attorney for neglecting two client matters, failing to keep clients reasonably 
informed about their matters, and failing to notify clients that his professional 
liability insurance had lapsed), and Akron Bar Assn. v. Freedman, 128 Ohio St.3d 
497, 2011-Ohio-1959, 946 N.E.2d 753 (publicly reprimanding an attorney who 
failed to timely communicate with a couple who had retained him, failed to keep 
them reasonably informed about the status of their case, failed to inform them that 
he did not maintain professional liability insurance, and failed to advise them that 
if he did not complete the representation, they could be entitled to a refund of part 
or all of the flat fee they had paid him). 
{¶ 6} We agree that Ryan violated Prof.Cond.R. 1.3 and 1.4 and that this 
conduct warrants a public reprimand.  Therefore, we adopt the parties’ consent-to-
discipline agreement and dismiss the alleged violations of Prof.Cond.R. 1.1 and 
8.4(h). 
{¶ 7} Accordingly, Corrine Noelle Ryan is hereby publicly reprimanded.  
Costs are taxed to Ryan. 
Judgment accordingly. 
O’CONNOR, C.J., and PFEIFER, O’DONNELL, LANZINGER, KENNEDY, 
FRENCH, and O’NEILL, JJ., concur. 
__________________ 
Bruce A. Campbell, Bar Counsel, and A. Alysha Clous, Assistant Bar 
Counsel; Janet A. Grubb; and Margaret L. Blackmore, for relator. 
Kegler, Brown, Hill & Ritter Co., L.P.A., and Christopher J. Weber, for 
respondent. 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO 
 
4
______________________