Title: Columbus Bar Assn. v. Dice

State: ohio

Issuer: Ohio Supreme Court

Document:

[Cite as Columbus Bar Assn. v. Dice, 120 Ohio St.3d 455, 2008-Ohio-6787.] 
 
 
 
COLUMBUS BAR ASSOCIATION v. DICE. 
[Cite as Columbus Bar Assn. v. Dice, 120 Ohio St.3d 455, 2008-Ohio-6787.] 
Attorneys at law — Misconduct — Conduct prejudicial to the administration of 
justice — Conduct adversely reflecting on the lawyer's fitness to practice 
law — Handling a legal matter without adequate preparation — Neglect 
of an entrusted legal matter  — Failing to seek the lawful objectives of a 
client — Failure to cooperate in a disciplinary investigation — Partially 
stayed suspension. 
(No. 2008-1238 — Submitted August 26, 2008 — Decided December 30, 2008.) 
ON CERTIFIED REPORT by the Board of Commissioners on Grievances and 
Discipline of the Supreme Court, No. 07-004. 
__________________ 
Per Curiam. 
{¶ 1} Respondent, Daniel Sean Dice of New York, New York, Attorney 
Registration No. 0069476, was admitted to the practice of law in Ohio in 1998. 
{¶ 2} The Board of Commissioners on Grievances and Discipline 
recommends that we suspend respondent’s license to practice for one year but 
stay the last six months on condition of no further misconduct, based on findings 
that he (1) delayed filing an appellate brief in an incarcerated client’s case for 
seven months, (2) failed to appear for oral argument on behalf of another criminal 
defendant, and then (3) did not fully cooperate in the investigation of this 
misconduct.  We agree that respondent committed professional misconduct as 
found by the board and that a one-year suspension with a six-month stay is 
appropriate. 
{¶ 3} Relator, Columbus Bar Association, charged respondent in a two-
count complaint with violations of the Code of Professional Responsibility and 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO 
2 
Gov.Bar R. V(4)(G) (requiring lawyers to cooperate during a disciplinary 
investigation).  Though respondent did not answer the complaint until relator 
moved for default, he afterward stipulated to the charged misconduct, and the 
parties jointly proposed as a sanction the one-year suspension and six-month stay.  
A panel of the board issued a report accepting the stipulations and the parties’ 
proposed sanction, which the board adopted. 
Misconduct 
Count I 
{¶ 4} Respondent was appointed in November 2004 to represent Larry 
Craft in a federal appeal of Craft’s felony conviction.  The Court of Appeals for 
the Sixth Circuit ordered respondent to file a brief in the appeal on February 22, 
2005.  Respondent did not file the brief and then caused unnecessary delay in his 
incarcerated client’s case.  Respondent obtained seven extensions, and it was not 
until August 22, 2005, that he finally filed a brief.  He then missed the deadline 
for filing an appendix to his brief, never filing it at all. 
{¶ 5} Craft frequently wrote to ask respondent about the case.  
Respondent seldom answered Craft’s letters, failing to properly provide status 
reports.  In early February 2006, after more than two years of respondent’s 
dilatory practices, the appellate court had to appoint new counsel for Craft. 
{¶ 6} Respondent also failed to appear in another client’s criminal case 
that had been scheduled for oral argument before the Sixth Circuit. 
{¶ 7} By his acts and omissions, respondent violated DR 1-102(A)(5) 
(prohibiting conduct that is prejudicial to the administration of justice), 1-
102(A)(6) (prohibiting conduct that adversely reflects on a lawyer’s fitness to 
practice law), 6-101(A)(2) (prohibiting a lawyer from handling a legal matter 
without preparation adequate in the circumstances), 6-101(A)(3) (prohibiting a 
lawyer from neglecting an entrusted legal matter), 7-101(A)(1) (prohibiting a 
lawyer from intentionally failing to seek the lawful objectives of his client), and 
January Term, 2008 
3 
7-101(A)(3) (prohibiting a lawyer from intentionally causing a client prejudice or 
damage during the course of the professional relationship). 
Count II 
{¶ 8} Craft filed a grievance against respondent in late January 2006.  
Between February and June 2006, relator sent three letters and left a voice mail 
asking for respondent’s response to the grievance.  Though respondent promised 
in various e-mails that his response was forthcoming, he did not provide any reply 
during the investigation process.  Respondent thereby violated Gov.Bar R. 
V(4)(G) and DR 1-102(A)(6). 
Sanction 
{¶ 9} The sanction proposed by the parties is consistent with 
Disciplinary Counsel v. Shramek, 98 Ohio St.3d 441, 2003-Ohio-1636, 786 
N.E.2d 869.  There, a lawyer neglected a products-liability case by failing to 
timely file an expert’s report for his client or ask for an extension.  The lawyer 
also did not respond to a motion to strike the expert’s testimony or supply 
evidentiary support in response to a motion for summary judgment.  That lawyer 
also failed to cooperate fully in the investigation of this misconduct by failing to 
respond to letters of inquiry or appear in response to a subpoena for his 
deposition. 
{¶ 10} Like respondent, the lawyer in Shramek violated duties to a client, 
DR 6-101(A)(3) and 7-101(A)(3), the public, DR 1-102(A)(5), the legal system, 
DR 1-102(A)(6), and the legal profession, Gov.Bar R. V(4)(G).  Id., 98 Ohio 
St.3d 441, 2003-Ohio-1636, 786 N.E.2d 869, ¶ 9.  We suspended the lawyer’s 
license to practice for one year and stayed the last six months of the suspension on 
the condition that he commit no further misconduct, factoring into our decision 
mitigating factors of no prior record of discipline, no dishonest motive, and 
eventual cooperation in the disciplinary process.  See BCGD Proc.Reg. 
10(B)(2)(a), (b), and (d). 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO 
4 
{¶ 11} These mitigating factors are also present in respondent’s case.  
Moreover, the parties have agreed that respondent suffers from a mental disability 
that contributed to his ethical lapses and for which he has been successfully 
treated, a factor that is mitigating under BCGD Proc.Reg. 10(B)(2)(g).  A one-
year suspension with a conditional six-month stay is thus equally appropriate 
here. 
{¶ 12} We note that since July 13, 2006, respondent has been on inactive 
status under Gov.Bar R. VI(2).  Today, we suspend respondent from the practice 
of law in Ohio for one year; however, the last six months of the suspension period 
are stayed on the condition that he engage in no further acts of professional 
misconduct.  If respondent violates the term of the stay, the stay will be lifted, and 
he will serve the entire one-year suspension.  Costs are taxed to respondent. 
Judgment accordingly. 
 
Moyer, C.J., and Pfeifer, Lundberg Stratton, O’Connor, Lanzinger, and 
Cupp, JJ., concur. 
 
O’Donnell, J., would suspend the respondent for one year, with no time 
stayed. 
__________________ 
Bloomfield & Kempf and David S. Bloomfield; Robert W. Edmund; and 
Bruce A. Campbell, Bar Counsel, and A. Alysha Clous, Assistant Bar Counsel, 
for relator. 
Daniel Sean Dice, pro se. 
______________________