Title: Akron Bar Assn. v. Maher

State: ohio

Issuer: Ohio Supreme Court

Document:

[Cite as Akron Bar Assn. v. Maher, 121 Ohio St.3d 45, 2009-Ohio-356.] 
 
 
 
AKRON BAR ASSOCIATION v. MAHER. 
[Cite as Akron Bar Assn. v. Maher, 121 Ohio St.3d 45, 2009-Ohio-356.] 
Attorneys at law — Misconduct — Multiple disciplinary violations — Indefinite 
suspension. 
(No. 2008-1270 — Submitted August 26, 2008 — Decided February 5, 2009.) 
ON CERTIFIED REPORT by the Board of Commissioners on Grievances and 
Discipline of the Supreme Court, No. 07-035. 
__________________ 
Per Curiam. 
{¶ 1} Respondent, Douglas B. Maher of Barberton, Ohio, Attorney 
Registration No. 0024038, was admitted to the practice of law in Ohio in 1977.  
The Board of Commissioners on Grievances and Discipline recommends that we 
indefinitely suspend respondent’s license to practice, based on findings that he 
committed professional misconduct, including multiple acts of dishonesty and 
failing to provide competent legal representation to clients.  We adopt the board’s 
findings of misconduct and accept the recommendation for an indefinite 
suspension. 
{¶ 2} Relator, Akron Bar Association, charged respondent with 
numerous violations of Gov.Bar R. V(4)(G) (requiring cooperation in a 
disciplinary investigation), the Disciplinary Rules of the Code of Professional 
Responsibility, and the Rules of Professional Conduct.1  A panel of the board 
                                                 
1.  Relator charged respondent with misconduct under applicable rules for acts occurring before 
and after February 1, 2007, the effective date of the Rules of Professional Conduct, which 
supersede the Code of Professional Responsibility.  In specifying both the former and current rules 
for the same acts, the allegations compose a single ethical violation.  Disciplinary Counsel v. 
Freeman, 119 Ohio St.3d 330, 2008-Ohio-3836, 894 N.E.2d 31, ¶ 1, fn. 1. 
 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO 
2 
heard the case, making findings of misconduct and recommending the indefinite 
suspension.  The board adopted the panel’s findings and recommendation. 
{¶ 3} The parties have not objected to the board report. 
Misconduct 
{¶ 4} Clear and convincing evidence established that respondent 
committed misconduct in connection with three separate attorney-client 
relationships.  The first case involved a wrongful-death claim arising out of a 
nursing home incident, the second case involved a civil protection order in a 
domestic relations dispute, and the third case involved a probate estate and the 
subsequent bankruptcy of the executor.  Clear and convincing evidence also 
shows that respondent committed misconduct by making untrue statements in a 
previous disciplinary proceeding, Akron Bar Assn. v. Maher, 110 Ohio St.3d 346, 
2006-Ohio-4575, 853 N.E.2d 660 (“Maher I”), to obtain leniency. 
A.  The Respondent’s Professional Duties 
{¶ 5} As a member of the Ohio bar, respondent owes duties to his 
clients, the general public, the legal profession, and the legal system.  In addition 
to Gov.Bar R. V(4)(G), the following ethical standards are at stake: 
{¶ 6} 1.  DR 1-102(A)(4) and (6), which respectively prohibit a lawyer 
from 
engaging 
in 
conduct 
involving 
“dishonesty, 
fraud, 
deceit, 
or 
misrepresentation” and “other conduct that adversely reflects on the lawyer’s 
fitness to practice law.” 
{¶ 7} 2.  DR 1-104, which in requiring disclosures concerning 
professional liability insurance provides: 
{¶ 8} “(A)  A lawyer shall inform a client at the time of the client’s 
engagement of the lawyer or at any time subsequent to the engagement if the 
lawyer does not maintain professional liability insurance * * *.  The notice shall 
be provided to the client on a separate form * * *. 
January Term, 2009 
3 
{¶ 9} “(B)  A lawyer shall maintain a copy of the notice signed by the 
client for five years after termination of representation of the client.” 
{¶ 10} 3.  DR 2-110(A)(2), which in prohibiting improper withdrawal 
from legal representation provides: 
{¶ 11} “[A] lawyer shall not withdraw from employment until the lawyer 
has taken reasonable steps to avoid foreseeable prejudice to the rights of his or her 
client, including giving due notice to his or her client, allowing time for 
employment of other counsel, delivering to the client all papers and property to 
which the client is entitled, and complying with applicable laws and rules.” 
{¶ 12} 4.  DR 6-101(A)(1) and (3), which respectively prohibit a lawyer 
from handling “a legal matter which he knows or should know that he is not 
competent to handle, without associating with him a lawyer who is competent to 
handle it” and neglect of an entrusted legal matter. 
{¶ 13} 5.  DR 9-102(A) and (B)(4), which respectively require a lawyer to 
deposit all client funds other than costs and expenses in one or more separate, 
identifiable bank accounts maintained in the state and to promptly pay or deliver 
upon request property in the lawyer’s possession that the client is entitled to 
receive. 
{¶ 14} 6.  Prof.Cond.R. 1.3, which provides,  “A lawyer shall act with 
reasonable diligence and promptness in representing a client.”   
{¶ 15} 7.  Prof.Cond.R. 1.15, which in ensuring the safety of client funds 
and property provides: 
{¶ 16} “(a)  A lawyer shall hold property of clients or third persons that is 
in a lawyer’s possession in connection with a representation separate from the 
lawyer’s own property. * * * The account shall be designated as a ‘client trust 
account,’ ‘IOLTA account,’ or with a clearly identifiable fiduciary title. * * * 
{¶ 17} “ * * *  
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO 
4 
{¶ 18} “(c)  A lawyer shall deposit into a client trust account legal fees 
and expenses that have been paid in advance, to be withdrawn by the lawyer only 
as fees are earned or expenses incurred.” 
{¶ 19} 8.  Prof.Cond.R. 1.16, which governs declining or terminating 
legal representation and provides: 
{¶ 20} “(d)  As part of the termination of representation, a lawyer shall 
take steps, to the extent reasonably practicable, to protect a client’s interest.  The 
steps include * * * delivering to the client all papers and property to which the 
client is entitled, and complying with applicable laws and rules.  Client papers and 
property shall be promptly delivered to the client. * * *  
{¶ 21} “(e)  A lawyer who withdraws from employment shall refund 
promptly any part of a fee paid in advance that has not been earned [with an 
exception not relevant here].” 
{¶ 22} 9.  Prof.Cond.R. 8.4(d) and (h), which respectively prohibit a 
lawyer from engaging in conduct that is prejudicial to the administration of justice 
and “other conduct that adversely reflects on the lawyer’s fitness to practice law.”   
B.  The Respondent’s Improprieties in Attorney-Client Relationships 
1.  The Ward Case 
{¶ 23} After their disabled son died in a nursing home incident on March 
22, 2004, Gary and Susan Ward engaged respondent in April 2004 to pursue 
damages for the loss. 
{¶ 24} Respondent does not now dispute the findings that he breached 
ethical duties in representing the Wards.  Although he did not file suit until the 
last day of the applicable two-year statute of limitations, respondent failed without 
cause to fully investigate the negligence claim either before or after he filed the 
complaint.  Moreover, other than obtaining a coroner’s report, respondent made 
no effort to enlist the expert witness testimony essential to winning the case. 
January Term, 2009 
5 
{¶ 25} Respondent also failed without cause to respond to discovery 
requests.  He did not obey court orders requiring his compliance with these 
requests, which led the defendant to move for dismissal.  When the defendant 
later moved for summary judgment, respondent was prepared neither to respond 
nor to go to trial if the court denied the motion.  To conceal his lack of 
preparation, respondent voluntarily dismissed the Wards’ case in early December 
2006 without telling his clients the real reason. 
{¶ 26} Respondent conceded that he should have associated with 
experienced co-counsel and that he misled the Wards about the reason for the 
voluntary dismissal of their case.  Moreover, though respondent did file an action 
to open an estate for the Wards’ deceased son for the purpose of pursuing a 
wrongful-death action, he did not dutifully proceed, and he disregarded orders of 
the probate court. 
{¶ 27} The Wards discharged respondent in December within days of the 
voluntary dismissal and demanded their files.  Later that month, respondent did 
not honor the written requests of the Wards and their new attorney for their files.  
Respondent had no basis for withholding the Wards’ files. 
{¶ 28} Respondent did not produce the Wards’ files until early March 
2007, after they filed one of the underlying grievances against him.  Respondent 
did not initially respond to relator’s inquiries about the grievance.  Finally, 
respondent neither carried professional liability insurance nor gave the Wards 
notice, in writing or otherwise, that he lacked this coverage. 
{¶ 29} Respondent violated DR 6-101(A)(1) and (3) with his neglect and 
professional incompetence in the Ward case.  He did not sufficiently investigate, 
comply with discovery requests, or look for a needed expert; nor did he seek 
competent assistance.  He did not determine whether to join potentially liable 
defendants, and he then dismissed the complaint on false pretenses.  Respondent 
compromised the Wards’ opportunity to recover for their son’s death with delay 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO 
6 
that risked the loss of evidence, by compromising their ability to dismiss the cause 
again without prejudice, and by allowing the statute of limitations to pass on 
claims against other potentially liable parties. 
{¶ 30} Respondent violated DR 1-104(A) by not properly disclosing his 
lack of professional malpractice insurance.  He violated DR 1-102(A)(4) by not 
truthfully disclosing his lack of expertise or the status of the lawsuit.  Respondent 
further violated DR 2-110(A)(2) and Prof.Cond.R. 1.16(d) by failing without 
justification to promptly deliver the Wards’ papers on demand.  Respondent’s acts 
and omissions, including his failure to respond during relator’s investigation, 
reflected poorly on his fitness to practice law, in violation of DR 1-102(A)(6) and 
Prof.Cond.R. 8.4(h). 
2.  The Stoner Case 
{¶ 31} Terri D. Stoner engaged respondent in October 2006 to enforce a 
civil protective order (“CPO”) that she had obtained against an assailant.  
Respondent knew that Stoner expected him to immediately begin proceedings 
against her attacker. 
{¶ 32} Respondent does not now dispute the findings that he breached 
ethical duties in representing Stoner.  Despite the threat to Stoner’s safety and her 
repeated requests for additional protection, respondent failed to take any action on 
her behalf other than to prepare in mid-November 2006 an affidavit that he never 
filed.  Respondent had no excuse for not filing the affidavit or for falsely advising 
Stoner, when she was able to communicate with him, that he was ably attending 
to her case. 
{¶ 33} Stoner discharged respondent in January 2007 and requested the 
return of her files and fee.  Respondent did not return the files for over six 
months.  Respondent did not refund Stoner’s money, which he had not deposited 
as unearned into his client trust account, until the panel hearing in March 2008. 
January Term, 2009 
7 
{¶ 34} Respondent neither carried professional liability insurance nor 
gave Stoner notice, in writing or otherwise, that he lacked this coverage.  He 
further failed to respond to relator’s initial efforts to investigate Stoner’s 
grievance. 
{¶ 35} Respondent violated DR 6-101(A)(3) with his neglectful inaction 
in not enforcing Stoner’s CPO.  He violated DR 1-104(A) and (B) by failing to 
properly disclose his lack of professional liability insurance.  By failing to deposit 
unearned fees in a separate client trust account, he also violated DR 9-102(A) and 
Prof.Cond.R. 1.15(a) and (c).  Respondent did not give an honest account to his 
client about the status of her case, a breach of trust that constitutes a violation of 
DR 1-102(A)(4).  He did not promptly return property to which she was entitled 
upon his discharge in violation of DR 2-110(A)(2) and 9-102(B)(4) and 
Prof.Cond.R. 1.15 and 1.16(d).  Respondent violated Gov.Bar R. V(4)(G) and 
Prof.Cond.R. 8.4(d) by disregarding relator’s investigation.  Respondent’s acts 
and inaction reflected poorly on his fitness to practice, in violation of DR 1-
102(A)(6) and Prof.Cond.R. 8.4(h). 
3.  The Hinkle Case 
{¶ 36} Larry D. Hinkle engaged respondent in September or October 1997 
to represent and assist in administering the estate of Hinkle’s mother. 
{¶ 37} Respondent does not now dispute the findings that he breached 
ethical duties in representing Hinkle.  Though Hinkle’s mother’s estate was 
uncomplicated, with assets worth approximately $20,000, it remained open for ten 
years until the end of 2007, approximately five months after Hinkle retained new 
counsel because of respondent’s inaction.  In failing to wrap up the estate within a 
reasonable time, respondent defied directives of his client, the probate court, and a 
bankruptcy trustee. 
{¶ 38} Respondent determined early in his representation of the estate that 
buyers purchasing property of the estate on land contract, who claimed to have 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO 
8 
paid in full, still owed approximately $10,000.  Yet respondent did nothing more 
to convey the property or enforce the land contract, disregarding many requests 
from Hinkle and probate court notices and citations concerning the sale and 
closing the estate. 
{¶ 39} Hinkle and his wife filed bankruptcy in 2005.  In the interests of 
Hinkle’s creditors, the bankruptcy trustee repeatedly attempted to communicate 
with respondent about completing the administration of his mother’s estate.  The 
trustee had no success. 
{¶ 40} Respondent did not carry professional liability insurance or give 
Hinkle notice, in writing or otherwise, that he lacked this coverage.  Respondent 
also failed to respond to relator’s initial efforts to investigate the Hinkle 
grievance. 
{¶ 41} Respondent violated DR 6-101(A)(3) and Prof.Cond.R. 1.3 by 
failing to administer the Hinkle estate in a timely and reasonably competent 
manner, a failure that complicated the sale of property in the estate and delayed 
his client’s discharge in bankruptcy.  He violated DR 1-104(A) and (B) by failing 
to properly disclose his lack of professional liability insurance.  His failure to 
respond to relator’s investigation and to the bankruptcy trustee violated Gov.Bar 
R. V(4)(G) and Prof.Cond.R. 8.4(d).  Respondent’s acts and inaction reflected 
poorly on his fitness to practice law and violated DR 1-102(A)6) and 
Prof.Cond.R. 8.4(h). 
C.  Respondent’s Previous Disciplinary Case—Maher I 
{¶ 42} Respondent was publicly reprimanded in Maher I for neglecting 
two clients in their pursuit of personal injury claims.  As of the March 2006 panel 
hearing in Maher I, respondent still represented the Wards in their civil suit and 
Hinkle in probate court.  He nevertheless told the hearing panel that he had 
returned to practicing only criminal and domestic relations law, the areas in which 
he was most proficient.  110 Ohio St.3d 346, 2006-Ohio-4575, 853 N.E.2d 660, ¶ 
January Term, 2009 
9 
12.  Respondent also falsely told the panel that he had acquired professional 
liability insurance. 
{¶ 43} The panel found that respondent misrepresented these facts to 
appear conscientious and contrite and to sway the panel toward leniency.  With 
this misrepresentation, respondent violated DR 1-102(A)(4). 
Sanction 
{¶ 44} “A lawyer's neglect of legal matters and failure to cooperate in the 
ensuing disciplinary investigation generally warrant an indefinite suspension from 
the practice of law in Ohio.”  Akron Bar Assn. v. Goodlet, 115 Ohio St.3d 7, 
2007-Ohio-4271, 873 N.E.2d 815, ¶ 20; see also Disciplinary Counsel v. Gosling, 
114 Ohio St.3d 474, 2007-Ohio-4267, 873 N.E.2d 282, ¶ 12; Disciplinary 
Counsel v. Mathewson, 113 Ohio St.3d 365, 2007-Ohio-2076, 865 N.E.2d 891.  
Evidence of mitigating factors – that respondent ultimately responded with candor 
during the disciplinary process, has begun mental-health treatment, and has had 
difficulties in his personal life – do not warrant our departure from this rule.  An 
indefinite suspension is therefore appropriate. 
{¶ 45} Respondent is indefinitely suspended from the practice of law in 
Ohio.  Costs are taxed to respondent. 
Judgment accordingly. 
 
MOYER, 
C.J., 
and 
PFEIFER, 
LUNDBERG 
STRATTON, 
O’CONNOR, 
O’DONNELL, LANZINGER, and CUPP, JJ., concur. 
__________________ 
Lee Petersen, for relator. 
Lawrence L. Delino Jr., for respondent. 
______________________