Case Title: Toledo Bar Assn. v. Farah

Citation: 2010-Ohio-2116

Docket Number: 20092330

State: ohio

Court: Ohio Supreme Court

Date: 2010-05-20T00:00:00Z

Document:
[Until this opinion appears in the Ohio Official Reports advance sheets, it may be cited as 
Toledo Bar Assn. v. Farah, Slip Opinion No. 2010-Ohio-2116.] 
 
 
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. 2010-OHIO-2116 
TOLEDO BAR ASSOCIATION v. FARAH. 
[Until this opinion appears in the Ohio Official Reports advance sheets, it 
may be cited as Toledo Bar Assn. v. Farah, Slip Opinion No. 2010-Ohio-2116.] 
Attorney misconduct, including neglect of client matters and failure to cooperate 
in the resulting disciplinary investigation — One-year suspension, all 
stayed on conditions. 
(No. 2009-2330 ⎯ Submitted February 24, 2010 ⎯ Decided May 20, 2010.) 
ON CERTIFIED REPORT by the Board of Commissioners on Grievances and 
Discipline of the Supreme Court, No. 08-078. 
__________________ 
Per Curiam. 
{¶ 1} Respondent, Asad Farah of Temperance, Michigan, Attorney 
Registration No. 0066174, was admitted to the practice of law in Ohio in 1996.  
He is also licensed to practice in Michigan.  Based upon findings of client neglect 
and failure to respond to the resulting disciplinary investigation, the Board of 
Commissioners on Grievances and Discipline recommends that we suspend 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO 
2 
 
respondent’s license to practice law in Ohio for 12 months, all stayed upon 
conditions, including one year of monitored probation. 
{¶ 2} In a two-count complaint, relator, Toledo Bar Association, charged 
respondent with five violations of the Code of Professional Responsibility arising 
from his representation of a client in two personal-injury actions prior to February 
1, 2007, and a single violation of Prof.Cond.R. 8.1(b) arising from his failure to 
respond to the resulting disciplinary investigation. 
Misconduct 
{¶ 3} At the panel hearing, the client testified that respondent had 
represented her in two personal-injury actions arising from separate automobile 
accidents.  Respondent consolidated the cases, but he never resolved them.  The 
client claimed that respondent had dismissed her cases without her knowledge or 
consent in March 2006, but that he had led her to believe that the cases remained 
pending.  She also testified that her cases “drug out for a long time” and that 
respondent often did not return her calls during the course of his representation.  
Despite the alleged deficiencies in respondent’s representation, the client was able 
to obtain new counsel who refiled and ultimately settled her claims. 
{¶ 4} Respondent testified that he had informed the client several times, 
both in person and on the telephone, that he was dismissing her case pursuant to 
Civ.R. 41(A) because he did not have all of the medical records and 
documentation necessary to proceed to trial.  He also claimed that he had sent her 
copies of everything that he had filed, including the motion to dismiss, and 
produced copies of two letters that he had sent to her regarding the dismissal.  
Nonetheless, he conceded that he “could have done more” to pursue her case and 
keep her informed. 
{¶ 5} Respondent admitted that he failed to cooperate in relator’s 
investigation of the grievance.  He acknowledged that he had received letters 
regarding the investigation but never opened them and that he had promised but 
January Term, 2010 
3 
 
failed to provide certain documents to relator.  He further stipulated that his 
conduct violated Prof.Cond.R. 8.1(b), and he volunteered to give up the practice 
of law in Ohio for one year to atone for his misconduct.  He noted that any 
sanction imposed in Ohio would also affect his license in Michigan, where he 
conducts the majority of his practice. 
{¶ 6} The panel and board found that respondent violated DR 6-
101(A)(3) by neglecting his client’s legal matters, and Prof.Cond.R. 8.1(b) by 
failing to cooperate in the resulting disciplinary investigation, but dismissed the 
remaining charges as unsupported by clear and convincing evidence.  We adopt 
these findings. 
Sanction 
{¶ 7} When imposing sanctions for attorney misconduct, we consider 
several factors, including the ethical duties that the lawyer violated and sanctions 
imposed in similar cases.  Stark Cty. Bar Assn. v. Buttacavoli, 96 Ohio St.3d 424, 
2002-Ohio-4743, 775 N.E.2d 818, ¶ 16.  In making a final determination, we also 
weigh evidence of the aggravating and mitigating factors listed in Section 10(B) 
of the Rules and Regulations Governing Procedure on Complaints and Hearings 
Before the Board of Commissioners on Grievances and Discipline (“BCGD Proc. 
Reg.”).  Disciplinary Counsel v. Broeren, 115 Ohio St.3d 473, 2007-Ohio-5251, 
875 N.E.2d 935, ¶ 21.  Because each disciplinary case is unique, we are not 
limited to the factors specified in the rule but may take into account “all relevant 
factors” in determining what sanction to impose.  BCGD Proc.Reg. 10(B). 
{¶ 8} The board noted that respondent’s initial lack of cooperation in the 
disciplinary process was an aggravating factor.  BCGD Proc.Reg. 10(B)(1)(e).  In 
mitigation, it found respondent’s absence of a prior disciplinary record, the 
absence of a dishonest or selfish motive, and respondent’s eventual cooperative 
attitude toward the disciplinary proceedings.  BCGD Proc.Reg. 10(B)(2)(a), (b), 
and (d).  At the time he handled the grievant’s case, respondent faced a number of 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO 
4 
 
personal problems, including a lawsuit against a former partner who allegedly 
forged respondent’s signature on half a million dollars of bank notes, and the 
criminal defense of a family friend, the result of which he said rendered him 
“dysfunctional for a period of time.”  These issues combined to cause marital and 
financial problems for respondent that culminated in his filing for bankruptcy.  
Respondent testified that as a result of these professional and personal challenges, 
he considered taking his own life.  Although he sought counsel from his clergy, he 
did not seek professional counseling, because he had no health insurance and 
could not afford treatment. 
{¶ 9} At the hearing, relator argued in favor of a 12-month suspension 
from the practice of law, with six months stayed, and respondent volunteered that 
he would voluntarily withdraw from the practice of law in Ohio for one year.  The 
board recommends that we impose a 12-month suspension, all stayed on the 
conditions that respondent (1) submit to a mental-health evaluation conducted by 
the Ohio Lawyers Assistance Program (“OLAP”), (2) comply with all of OLAP’s 
treatment recommendations, and (3) submit to one year of monitored probation 
commencing upon the completion of OLAP’s mental-health assessment. 
{¶ 10} We have previously imposed suspensions ranging from six to 18 
months, stayed upon conditions, for similar conduct accompanied by similar 
mitigating factors.  See, e.g., Cleveland Bar Assn. v. Norton, 116 Ohio St.3d 226, 
2007-Ohio-6038, 877 N.E.2d 964; Columbus Bar Assn. v. DiAlbert, 98 Ohio St.3d 
386, 2003-Ohio-1091, 785 N.E.2d 747; Disciplinary Counsel v. Boulger (2000), 
88 Ohio St.3d 325, 725 N.E.2d 1112; Disciplinary Counsel v. Boykin (1994), 70 
Ohio St.3d 75, 637.N.E.2d 296.  Therefore we agree that the board’s 
recommended sanction is appropriate. 
{¶ 11} Accordingly, we suspend respondent from the practice of law in 
Ohio for 12 months; however, the suspension is stayed upon the conditions that 
respondent (1) submit to a mental-health evaluation conducted by OLAP, (2) 
January Term, 2010 
5 
 
comply with all of OLAP’s treatment recommendations, and (3) submit to one 
year of monitored probation pursuant to Gov.Bar R. V(9).  If respondent fails to 
comply with the conditions of the stay or probation, the stay will be lifted, and 
respondent will serve the full 12-month suspension from practice.  Costs are taxed 
to respondent. 
Judgment accordingly. 
 
PFEIFER, LUNDBERG STRATTON, O’CONNOR, O’DONNELL, LANZINGER, and 
CUPP, JJ., concur. 
 
BROWN, C.J., not participating. 
__________________ 
Marshall & Melhorn, L.L.C., and John A. Borell Jr.; Yolanda D. Gwinn; 
and Jonathan B. Cherry, Bar Counsel, for relator. 
Asad Farah, pro se. 
______________________