Title: Mahoning Cty. Bar Assn. v. Longenhagen

State: ohio

Issuer: Ohio Supreme Court

Document:

[Cite as Mahoning Cty. Bar Assn. v. Longenhagen, 101 Ohio St.3d 6, 2003-Ohio-6451.] 
 
 
MAHONING COUNTY BAR ASSOCIATION v. LONGENHAGEN. 
[Cite as Mahoning Cty. Bar Assn. v. Longenhagen, 101 Ohio St.3d 6, 2003-
Ohio-6451.] 
Attorneys at law — Misconduct — One-year suspension with six months of 
sanction stayed on condition that no further violations of Disciplinary 
Rules are committed — Handling a legal matter without adequate 
preparation — Neglecting an entrusted legal matter — Failing to seek 
lawful objectives of client — Failing to carry out employment contract — 
Failing to cooperate in disciplinary investigation. 
(No. 2003-1517 — Submitted October 20, 2003 — Decided December 24, 2003.) 
ON CERTIFIED REPORT by the Board of Commissioners on Grievances and 
Discipline of the Supreme Court, No. 02-032. 
__________________ 
 
Per Curiam. 
{¶1} 
In January 1996, a client retained respondent, Je’Anne 
Longenhagen of Canfield, Ohio, Attorney Registration No. 0029166, to probate 
her late husband’s estate.  The client paid respondent approximately $3,600. 
{¶2} 
In September 1999, the client received notice from the probate 
court that the estate had not yet been settled, and she then left numerous messages 
with respondent concerning the case.  Respondent failed to return her calls, and in 
March 2000, the client filed a grievance with relator, Mahoning County Bar 
Association.  Relator dismissed the grievance when the client withdrew it on 
respondent’s assurance that she would complete the case within a few months. 
{¶3} 
In June 2001, the client filed a second grievance against 
respondent with relator because respondent had failed to resolve the probate 
matter.  Respondent failed to cooperate in relator’s investigation of the grievance.  
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO 
2 
Even though respondent twice assured relator that she would file a written reply 
to her client’s grievance and submit pleadings in the probate case, she never did. 
{¶4} 
On June 17, 2002, relator filed a complaint charging respondent 
with several violations of the Disciplinary Rules and one violation of a Rule for 
the Government of the Bar.  Respondent failed to answer relator’s complaint, and 
the Board of Commissioners on Grievances and Discipline of the Supreme Court 
referred the cause to a master commissioner pursuant to Gov.Bar R. V(6)(F)(2) to 
review relator’s supplemental motion for default judgment. 
{¶5} 
The master commissioner found the facts as previously set forth 
and concluded that respondent had violated DR 6-101(A)(2) (handling a legal 
matter without adequate preparation), 6-101(A)(3) (neglecting an entrusted legal 
matter), 7-101(A)(1) (failing to seek lawful objectives of client through 
reasonably available means), and 7-101(A)(2) (failing to carry out employment 
contract), and Gov.Bar R. V(4)(G) (failing to cooperate in the disciplinary 
process). 
{¶6} 
In mitigation, the master commissioner found that respondent, who 
was admitted to the bar in 1980, had no prior disciplinary record.  Respondent had 
experienced emotional turmoil as the result of marital difficulties and her family’s 
illnesses. 
{¶7} 
The master commissioner recommended that respondent be 
suspended from the practice of law in Ohio for one year, with six months stayed.  
The board adopted the findings, conclusions, and recommendation of the master 
commissioner and further recommended that the costs of the proceeding be taxed 
to respondent. 
{¶8} 
We adopt the findings, conclusions, and recommendation of the 
board.  “Although an indefinite suspension is generally warranted when a pattern 
of neglecting legal matters is coupled with a failure to cooperate in the ensuing 
disciplinary investigation, there is no such pattern of neglect related to multiple 
January Term, 2003 
3 
clients here.”  Cleveland Bar Assn. v. Cicirella (1999), 86 Ohio St.3d 544, 545, 
715 N.E.2d 1131.  In addition, the board properly credited respondent’s 
mitigating evidence relating to extreme marital and personal stress as well as the 
absence of a prior disciplinary record.  See Disciplinary Counsel v. Braun (2000), 
90 Ohio St.3d 138, 140, 735 N.E.2d 430 (one-year suspension with six months 
stayed is an appropriate sanction for attorney who violated DR 6-101[A][2] and 
[3] and 7-101[A][1], [2], and [3], because evidence established that during that 
period, he “was undergoing severe marital stress and suffered from clinical 
depression”). 
{¶9} 
Accordingly, respondent is hereby suspended from the practice of 
law in Ohio for one year, with six months stayed on the condition that respondent 
commit no further Disciplinary Rule violations.  Costs are taxed to respondent. 
Judgment accordingly. 
 
MOYER, C.J., RESNICK, F.E. SWEENEY, PFEIFER, LUNDBERG STRATTON, 
O’CONNOR and O’DONNELL, JJ., concur. 
__________________ 
 
Ronald E. Slipski and Larry D. Wilkes, for relator. 
__________________