Case Title: Disciplinary Counsel v. Valenti

Citation: 2021-Ohio-1373

Docket Number: 2020-1519

State: ohio

Court: Ohio Supreme Court

Date: 2021-04-21T00:00:00Z

Document:
[Until this opinion appears in the Ohio Official Reports advance sheets, it may be cited as 
Disciplinary Counsel v. Valenti, Slip Opinion No. 2021-Ohio-1373.] 
 
 
 
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. 2021-OHIO-1373 
DISCIPLINARY COUNSEL v. VALENTI. 
[Until this opinion appears in the Ohio Official Reports advance sheets, it 
may be cited as Disciplinary Counsel v. Valenti, Slip Opinion No.  
2021-Ohio-1373.] 
Attorneys—Misconduct—Violations of the Rules of Professional Conduct, 
including failing to provide competent representation to clients, failing to 
act with reasonable diligence in representing clients, and engaging in 
conduct prejudicial to the administration of justice—Six-month suspension 
stayed on conditions. 
(No. 2020-1519—Submitted January 27, 2021—Decided April 21, 2021.) 
ON CERTIFIED REPORT by the Board of Professional Conduct of the Supreme 
Court, No. 2020-010. 
_______________________ 
Per Curiam. 
{¶ 1} Respondent, Kimberly Anne Valenti, of Hudson, Ohio, Attorney 
Registration No. 0074624, was admitted to the practice of law in Ohio in 2002. 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO 
 
2
{¶ 2} In February 2020, relator, disciplinary counsel, charged Valenti with 
failing to competently and diligently represent clients in three matters in which she 
had been appointed to serve as counsel.  Although the parties entered into factual 
stipulations, Valenti denied that her conduct violated the professional-conduct 
rules, and the matter proceeded to a hearing before a three-member panel of the 
Board of Professional Conduct.  The board issued a report finding that Valenti 
engaged in the charged misconduct and recommending that we impose a 
conditionally stayed six-month suspension.  Neither party has objected to the 
board’s report and recommendation. 
{¶ 3} Based on our review of the record, we adopt the board’s findings of 
misconduct and recommended sanction, with one modification to the sanction. 
Misconduct 
The Doak matter 
{¶ 4} In April 2018, the Portage County Court of Common Pleas appointed 
Valenti to serve as appellate counsel for Richard B. Doak, who had been sentenced 
to life in prison without the possibility of parole.  Doak’s appellate brief was 
originally due in August 2018, but Valenti sought and received three extensions of 
time.  She nonetheless failed to file the brief by the October 22, 2018 deadline.  On 
December 4, 2018, the Eleventh District Court of Appeals sua sponte ordered 
Valenti to file the brief within 14 days or show cause as to why the appeal should 
not be dismissed for failure to prosecute.  Valenti filed the brief on December 19, 
2018.  She did not file a reply to the state’s merit brief. 
{¶ 5} On May 15, 2019, Valenti appeared for oral argument and informed 
the appellate panel that the parties intended to waive oral argument and stand on 
their briefs.  One of the judges, however, expressed serious concerns about 
Valenti’s brief.  He stated that the citations and abbreviations made no sense and 
that the brief was “52 pages of the most difficult reading I’ve ever probably done 
in 12 years.”  The judge noted that considering the seriousness of Doak’s sentence, 
January Term, 2021 
 
3
the arguments should have been set forth in a coherent manner with citations to 
authority for each assignment of error.  After hearing this feedback, Valenti 
requested a continuance.  The court gave her two weeks to file a reply brief so that 
she could clarify her arguments.  The court also rescheduled oral argument. 
{¶ 6} Valenti thereafter sought and obtained an extension of time until June 
3, 2019, to file the reply brief.  But she failed to submit the brief by the deadline, 
and the court of appeals sua sponte removed her as Doak’s counsel.  In its entry, 
the court noted that Valenti’s merit brief was “inadequate, incoherent and 
unintelligible” and that she was unprepared for oral argument.  The court appointed 
new appellate counsel for Doak and granted the attorney additional time to file a 
new brief on Doak’s behalf. 
{¶ 7} At her disciplinary hearing, Valenti acknowledged that her appellate 
brief included confusing abbreviations, incomplete sentences, improper citations to 
constitutional provisions, a confusing statement of facts, and unclear legal 
arguments.  According to Valenti, she had inadvertently filed a draft of her brief 
and failed to save the final version—a fact that she did not realize until after oral 
argument.  She also testified that although she had intended to meet the June 3, 
2019 deadline for the reply brief, her USB flash drive “broke off” and the court 
removed her from the case before she could file the brief. 
The Evans matter 
{¶ 8} In February 2019, the Portage County Court of Common Pleas 
appointed Valenti to serve as appellate counsel for Dwight D. Evans.  Valenti, 
however, failed to file a timely notice of appeal.  Instead, almost a month after the 
initial due date, Valenti filed a motion for a delayed appeal.  In late June 2019, the 
Eleventh District granted the motion, noting in its entry that Evans “should not be 
penalized for counsel’s error in filing an untimely appeal.”  But in the same entry, 
the court of appeals sua sponte removed Valenti as Evans’s appellate counsel and 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO 
 
4
appointed him a new attorney.  Two of the judges hearing Evans’s case had also 
served on the panel in Doak’s appeal. 
The Ellison matter 
{¶ 9} In October 2018, the Summit County Court of Common Pleas, 
Domestic Relations Division, appointed Valenti to represent Pearlena Ellison in a 
contempt proceeding regarding child-support obligations.  The court scheduled a 
hearing for June 4, 2019.  Around that same time, relator was investigating an 
unrelated grievance against Valenti, who agreed to reschedule a deposition with 
relator for June 4—the same day as Ellison’s hearing.  Valenti failed to appear for 
Ellison’s hearing and failed to notify Ellison or the court that she had a conflict in 
her schedule.  The court appointed a new attorney for Ellison and rescheduled the 
hearing in the contempt proceeding. 
Rule violations 
{¶ 10} The board found that Valenti violated Prof.Cond.R. 1.1, 1.3, and 
8.4(d). 
{¶ 11} Prof.Cond.R. 1.1 requires a lawyer to provide competent 
representation to a client.  “Competent representation requires the legal knowledge, 
skill, thoroughness, and preparation reasonably necessary for the representation.”  
Id.  “To maintain the requisite knowledge and skill, a lawyer should keep abreast 
of changes in the law and its practice, including the benefits and risks associated 
with relevant technology.”  Id. at Comment 8.  The board concluded that Valenti 
was not “sufficiently technologically competent” in the Doak matter.  The board 
further concluded that her late filings in the Doak and Evans matters, her scheduling 
of a deposition on the date of Ellison’s hearing, and her failure to inform Ellison or 
the court of her scheduling conflict did not “reflect [the] thoroughness and 
preparation reasonably necessary for competent representation.” 
{¶ 12} Prof.Cond.R. 1.3 requires a lawyer to “act with reasonable diligence 
and promptness in representing a client.”  The board found that by failing to comply 
January Term, 2021 
 
5
with the deadlines imposed by the Ohio Rules of Appellate Procedure and by failing 
to appear for a scheduled hearing, Valenti did not act with reasonable diligence and 
promptness while representing Doak, Evans, and Ellison. 
{¶ 13} Prof.Cond.R. 8.4(d) prohibits a lawyer from “engag[ing] in conduct 
that is prejudicial to the administration of justice.”  The board found that by failing 
to file a final version of her brief in Doak’s appeal, failing to file a timely notice of 
appeal in Evans’s case, and failing to appear at Ellison’s hearing, Valenti’s conduct 
was prejudicial to the administration of justice. 
{¶ 14} We agree with the board’s findings of misconduct. 
Sanction 
{¶ 15} When imposing sanctions for attorney misconduct, we consider all 
relevant factors, including the ethical duties that the lawyer violated, the 
aggravating and mitigating factors listed in Gov.Bar R. V(13), and the sanctions 
imposed in similar cases. 
{¶ 16} The board found two aggravating factors: Valenti engaged in a 
pattern of misconduct and committed multiple offenses.  See Gov.Bar R. 
V(13)(B)(3) and (4).  In mitigation, the board found that Valenti has a clean 
disciplinary record, she lacked a dishonest or selfish motive, she had a cooperative 
attitude toward the board proceedings, she submitted evidence of good character 
and reputation, and other penalties have been imposed for her misconduct—
namely, she was removed as counsel in the three matters.  See Gov.Bar R. 
V(13)(C)(1), (2), (4), (5), and (6). 
{¶ 17} The board recommends that we suspend Valenti for six months, with 
the suspension stayed on conditions, including a requirement that she complete six 
hours of continuing legal education in law-office management with a focus on 
calendar management and law-office technology.  To support its recommended 
sanction, the board cited several cases in which we imposed conditionally stayed 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO 
 
6
six-month suspensions on attorneys who had engaged in misconduct similar to 
Valenti’s. 
{¶ 18} For example, in Disciplinary Counsel v. Schnittke, 152 Ohio St.3d 
152, 2017-Ohio-9206, 93 N.E.3d 974, an attorney failed to file briefs in three 
criminal cases in which he had been appointed to serve as appellate counsel and 
failed to reasonably communicate with two of those clients.  Aggravating factors 
included a pattern of misconduct, multiple offenses, and harm to vulnerable clients.  
Mitigating factors included the absence of prior discipline, a lack of a dishonest or 
selfish motive, full and free disclosure to the board and a cooperative attitude 
toward the disciplinary proceedings, good character and reputation, and 
acknowledgement of wrongdoing.  We concluded that a conditionally stayed six-
month suspension was the appropriate sanction for that misconduct. 
{¶ 19} In Columbus Bar Assn. v. LaFayette, 152 Ohio St.3d 147, 2017-
Ohio-9205, 93 N.E.3d 970, the attorney’s misconduct included failure to 
competently and diligently represent a client in an immigration matter and failure 
to competently represent a client in a bankruptcy case.  As an aggravating factor, 
the attorney had engaged in multiple offenses.  In mitigation, he had no prior 
discipline, lacked a dishonest or selfish motive, had a cooperative attitude toward 
the disciplinary proceedings, and submitted positive character evidence.  We 
concluded that a conditionally stayed six-month suspension was consistent with our 
precedent. 
{¶ 20} Considering Valenti’s misconduct, the relevant mitigating and 
aggravating factors, and the sanctions imposed for comparable misconduct, we 
agree that a six-month suspension, stayed in its entirety on the conditions 
recommended by the board, is appropriate.  But given the problems identified in 
this case and that court-appointed work is a significant portion of Valenti’s practice, 
we also require her to complete six hours of continuing legal education in criminal 
appellate law prior to accepting any new appointments in appellate cases. 
January Term, 2021 
 
7
Conclusion 
{¶ 21} Kimberly Anne Valenti is hereby suspended from the practice of law 
in Ohio for six months, with the entire suspension stayed on the conditions that she 
(1) as part of her continuing-legal-education requirements under Gov.Bar R. X, 
complete six hours of continuing legal education in law-office management, 
including calendar-management and law-office-technology training, within 90 days 
of our disciplinary order and six hours of continuing legal education in criminal 
appellate law prior to accepting any new court appointments in appellate matters 
and (2) refrain from any further misconduct.  If Valenti fails to comply with either 
condition of the stay, the stay will be lifted and she will serve the entire six-month 
suspension.  Costs are taxed to Valenti. 
Judgment accordingly. 
O’CONNOR, C.J., and KENNEDY, FISCHER, DEWINE, DONNELLY, STEWART, 
and BRUNNER, JJ. 
__________________ 
Joseph M. Caligiuri, Disciplinary Counsel, Donald M. Scheetz, Chief 
Assistant Disciplinary Counsel, and Adam P. Bessler, Assistant Disciplinary 
Counsel, for relator. 
Jeffrey N. James, for respondent. 
_________________