Title: Disciplinary Counsel v. Ita

State: ohio

Issuer: Ohio Supreme Court

Document:

[Cite as Disciplinary Counsel v. Ita, 117 Ohio St.3d 477, 2008-Ohio-1508.] 
 
 
 
DISCIPLINARY COUNSEL v. ITA 
[Cite as Disciplinary Counsel v. Ita, 117 Ohio St.3d 477, 2008-Ohio-1508.] 
Attorneys at law—Misconduct—Conduct prejudicial to the administration of 
justice—Handling a legal matter without adequate preparation—Public 
reprimand. 
(No. 2007-2298 — Submitted January 9, 2008 — Decided April 3, 2008.) 
ON CERTIFIED REPORT by the Board of Commissioners on Grievances and 
Discipline of the Supreme Court, No. 07-070. 
__________________ 
Per Curiam. 
{¶ 1} Respondent, Timothy A. Ita of Seville, Ohio, Attorney Registration 
No. 0029549, was admitted to the practice of law in Ohio in 1985.  The Board of 
Commissioners on Grievances and Discipline recommends that we publicly 
reprimand respondent based on findings that he filed an unauthorized claim for 
damages on behalf of his client’s wife and then dismissed the claim with 
prejudice and without the wife’s consent.  We agree that respondent committed 
professional misconduct as found by the board and accept the recommendation of 
a public reprimand. 
{¶ 2} Relator, Disciplinary Counsel, charged respondent with violations 
of the Code of Professional Responsibility, including DR 1-102(A)(5) (a lawyer 
shall not engage in conduct that is prejudicial to the administration of justice) and 
6-101(A)(2) (a lawyer shall not handle a legal matter without adequate 
preparation under the circumstances).  A panel of the board considered the case 
on the parties’ consent-to-discipline agreement.  See Section 11 of the Rules and 
Regulations Governing Procedure on Complaints and Hearings Before the Board 
of Commissioners on Grievances and Discipline (“BCGD Proc.Reg.”).  The panel 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO 
2 
recommended acceptance of the agreement, which included stipulations to the 
cited misconduct and a joint proposal for a public reprimand.  The board adopted 
the panel’s findings of misconduct and recommended sanction. 
Misconduct 
{¶ 3} Respondent, an associate of R. Jack Clapp & Associates Company, 
L.P.A., began representing Brian T. Walker in February 2003, after taking the 
case over from a lawyer who had left the firm.  Walker had been injured in a 
motor vehicle accident in October 2002 and had retained respondent’s firm 
shortly afterward to file a personal-injury claim for him. 
{¶ 4} In preparing the lawsuit, respondent learned from his predecessor’s 
interview notes that Walker had been married at the time of the crash.  The notes 
did not also disclose that Walker, who would later file for divorce, was living 
separately from his wife at the time of the interview.  Respondent did not confirm 
Walker’s marital status before filing suit and never spoke with Walker’s wife. 
{¶ 5} Respondent filed the Walker complaint on October 20, 2004, and, 
without obtaining her consent, included Walker’s wife as a party for whom he 
asserted a claim for loss of consortium.  The parties then engaged in typical 
discovery measures, including the defense’s deposition of Walker in April 2005.  
The defense did not depose Walker’s wife, however, and no one inquired into the 
circumstances of Walker’s marriage. 
{¶ 6} By September 2005, the parties in the Walker case were discussing 
settlement, and the defense had offered $15,000.  In discussing the offer with 
Walker, respondent explained that both Walker and his wife would be required to 
sign the settlement agreement.  Walker replied that he and his wife were separated 
and that he did not want her to be a party to the settlement paperwork.  
Respondent then reviewed the case file and realized for the first time that 
Walker’s wife had not signed a fee agreement with his law firm or, in fact, had 
had any contact at all with the firm.  Respondent advised Walker of this oversight 
January Term, 2008 
3 
and explained that defendant’s counsel would likely require that Walker agree to 
indemnify the defendant for the loss-of-consortium claim of his estranged wife.  
Walker agreed. 
{¶ 7} In finalizing the settlement, defendant’s counsel agreed to pay the 
$15,000 settlement if Walker dismissed his wife’s consortium claim with 
prejudice and agreed to indemnify the defendant for the potential value of that 
loss. Respondent accepted those terms on his client’s behalf. 
{¶ 8} The parties to the Walker case later consummated the settlement, 
and respondent advised the court of their agreement.  To this end, respondent filed 
on September 6, 2005, an entry of voluntary dismissal with prejudice to forever 
preclude Walker’s wife from asserting loss of consortium attributable to Walker’s 
injuries.  Walker later filed for divorce, and in November 2005, his wife 
discovered not only that she had been a party to his lawsuit but that the court had 
dismissed her claim with prejudice. 
{¶ 9} Respondent never represented Walker’s wife.  He thus had no 
authority to file and then dismiss a claim for damages on her behalf.  Respondent 
concedes that he thereby violated DR 1-102(A)(5) and 6-101(A)(2). 
Sanction 
{¶ 10} We accept the recommendation to publicly reprimand respondent 
for the cited misconduct.  Respondent failed to investigate his client’s marital 
status and dismissed a consortium claim of undetermined value.  No one has 
suggested, however, that these ill-advised actions resulted from anything other 
than carelessness.  Respondent’s lack of any enmity, his heretofore unblemished 
professional record, his established good character and reputation, and his 
cooperation in these proceedings persuade us that a warning will suffice in this 
case. 
{¶ 11} We hereby publicly reprimand respondent for his violations of DR 
1-102(A)(5) and 6-101(A)(2).  Costs are taxed to respondent. 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO 
4 
Judgment accordingly. 
 
MOYER, 
C.J., 
and 
PFEIFER, 
LUNDBERG 
STRATTON, 
O’CONNOR, 
O’DONNELL, LANZINGER, and CUPP, JJ., concur. 
__________________ 
Jonathan E. Coughlan, Disciplinary Counsel, and Stacy Solochek 
Beckman, Assistant Disciplinary Counsel, for relator. 
Richard C. Alkire Co., L.P.A., Richard C. Alkire, and Dean Nieding, for 
respondent. 
______________________