Title: Disciplinary Counsel v. Ohlin

State: ohio

Issuer: Ohio Supreme Court

Document:

[Until this opinion appears in the Ohio Official Reports advance sheets, it may be cited as 
Disciplinary Counsel v. Ohlin, Slip Opinion No. 2010-Ohio-3826.] 
 
 
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. 2010-OHIO-3826 
DISCIPLINARY COUNSEL v. OHLIN. 
[Until this opinion appears in the Ohio Official Reports advance sheets, it 
may be cited as Disciplinary Counsel v. Ohlin,  
Slip Opinion No. 2010-Ohio-3826.] 
Attorneys — Misconduct — Failure to provide competent representation — 
Failure to act with reasonable diligence — Failure to inform client of lack 
of malpractice insurance — Neglect of entrusted legal matter — Failure to 
seek client’s lawful objectives — Intentional failure to carry out contract 
of employment — Failure to cooperate with disciplinary investigation — 
Indefinite suspension. 
(No. 2010-0287 — Submitted March 31, 2010 — Decided August 24, 2010.) 
ON CERTIFIED REPORT by the Board of Commissioners on Grievances and 
Discipline of the Supreme Court, No. 09-061. 
__________________ 
Per Curiam. 
{¶ 1} Respondent, Joseph David Ohlin of Warren, Ohio, Attorney 
Registration No. 0031532, was admitted to the practice of law in Ohio in 1985.  In 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO 
2 
 
August 2009, relator, Disciplinary Counsel, filed a complaint charging him with 
violations of the Code of Professional Responsibility, the Ohio Rules of 
Professional Conduct, and Gov.Bar R. V(4)(G) and VI(1)(D).  During the 
pendency of this action, we suspended respondent’s license for his failure to 
register for the 2009/2011 attorney-registration biennium.  In re Ohlin, 123 Ohio 
St.3d 1475, 2009-Ohio-5786, 915 N.E.2d 1256.  We also sanctioned and 
suspended him for failing to comply with the continuing-legal-education 
requirements set forth in Gov.Bar R. X(3).  In re Ohlin, 124 Ohio St.3d 1402, 
2009-Ohio-6833, 918 N.E.2d 1010. 
{¶ 2} Although relator’s complaint was served by certified mail on 
August 19, 2009, at the address respondent has registered with the Office of 
Attorney Services, he failed to file an answer.  Relator filed a motion for default 
supported by documentary evidence, including a deposition of respondent 
conducted by relator in May 2009.  A master commissioner appointed by the 
board considered the motion for default and prepared a report recommending that 
the board indefinitely suspend respondent.  The board adopted the master 
commissioner’s findings that the materials offered in support of the default 
motion were sufficient and that respondent had committed multiple violations of 
the ethical duties incumbent upon Ohio lawyers. 
{¶ 3} In accordance with the master commissioner’s report, the board 
now recommends that we (1) indefinitely suspend respondent from the practice of 
law, (2) condition his reinstatement upon submission of proof that he has resolved 
the problems that he claims have contributed to his misconduct, and (3) require 
him to complete one year of monitored probation pursuant to Gov.Bar R. V(9) 
upon his reinstatement.  Additionally, the board recommends that we require 
proof that respondent has made full restitution to the client discussed in Count 
Three. 
January Term, 2010 
3 
 
{¶ 4} We agree that respondent has committed professional misconduct 
and accept the board’s recommended sanction. 
Misconduct 
Count One 
{¶ 5} In 2002, a client retained respondent’s law firm to represent him in 
a personal injury case.  Another attorney at the firm filed a lawsuit on the client’s 
behalf, and when that attorney left the firm, respondent assumed the 
representation.  After respondent failed to reply to the defendants’ motion to 
dismiss or to the defendants’ motion for summary judgment, the trial court 
granted judgment in favor of the defendants. 
{¶ 6} At his deposition, respondent acknowledged that he had received a 
copy of a letter of inquiry from relator forwarding the client’s grievance and that 
he failed to respond.  He further admitted that his malpractice insurance had 
lapsed and that he had failed to inform the client of this fact.  Although he agreed 
to provide additional information regarding his malpractice insurance and the 
client’s complete case file to the relator following the deposition, he failed to do 
so. 
{¶ 7} The board found that respondent’s conduct prior to February 1, 
2007, violated DR 1-104(A) and (B) (requiring a lawyer to inform a client at the 
time of engagement or at any time subsequent to the engagement if the lawyer 
does not maintain professional-liability insurance, and to keep a copy of the 
notice signed by the client for five years after the termination of representation), 
and that his conduct after February 1, 2007, violated Prof.Cond.R. 1.1 (requiring a 
lawyer to provide competent representation to a client), 1.3 (requiring a lawyer to 
act with reasonable diligence and promptness in representing a client), 1.4(c) 
(requiring a lawyer to inform the client at the time of the engagement or at any 
time subsequent to the engagement if the lawyer does not maintain professional 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO 
4 
 
liability insurance), and Gov.Bar R. V(4)(G) (requiring a lawyer to cooperate with 
a disciplinary investigation).  We accept these findings of misconduct. 
Count Two 
{¶ 8} The board found that in April 2005, a second client retained 
respondent and paid him $200 to pursue expungement of a federal criminal 
conviction.  A year and a half after he was retained, respondent sought the 
assistance of another attorney.  The client met with that attorney and issued a 
check for $400, payable to respondent.  Respondent cashed the check and gave 
the money to the other attorney for the work he had performed.  The board found 
that respondent failed to obtain the expungement his client sought and that he 
failed to return her telephone calls.  At his deposition, respondent agreed to 
provide the client’s file to relator, but failed to do so. 
{¶ 9} Based upon its findings of fact, the board determined that 
respondent’s conduct violated DR 6-101(A)(3) (prohibiting neglect of an 
entrusted legal matter), 7-101(A)(1) (prohibiting a lawyer from intentionally 
failing to seek the lawful objectives of his client), and Gov.Bar R. V(4)(G).  
However, the board concluded that the record did not support relator’s allegation 
that respondent’s conduct violated DR 7-101(A)(2) (prohibiting a lawyer from 
intentionally failing to carry out a contract of employment for legal services). 
{¶ 10} While we accept the majority of the board’s findings of fact, we 
note that the findings regarding the respondent’s intentional failure to obtain the 
client’s goal of expungement and his failure to return client telephone calls are not 
supported by the record.  In Dayton Bar Assn. v. Sebree, 104 Ohio St.3d 448, 
2004-Ohio-6560, 820 N.E.2d 318, ¶ 5, we recognized that  Gov.Bar R. 
V(6)(F)(1)(b) “requires that a motion for default in a disciplinary proceeding be 
supported by  ‘[s]worn or certified documentary prima facie evidence in support 
of the allegations made.’ ”  We held that a motion for default in a disciplinary 
proceeding supported only by the summary, conclusory, and hearsay-filled 
January Term, 2010 
5 
 
affidavits of the relator’s investigator did not satisfy this requirement.  Id. at ¶ 9.  
Therefore, we instructed relators in future disciplinary proceedings to provide 
affidavits executed by the grievants themselves to support a default motion.  Id. 
{¶ 11} In this case, the relator has submitted only a photocopy of the 
client’s unsworn and uncertified grievance to prove that respondent failed to 
return the client’s phone calls and failed to achieve the object of the 
representation.  Because relator has not submitted an affidavit from the grievant, 
or otherwise proven these facts with sworn or certified documentary evidence, we 
reject these factual findings. 
{¶ 12} Nonetheless, the record contains sufficient sworn or certified 
evidence to support the board’s other findings.  Therefore, we agree that 
respondent’s conduct violated DR 6-101(A)(3) and 7-101(A)(1) and Gov.Bar R. 
V(4)(G),  and we dismiss the alleged violation of DR 7-101(A)(2). 
Count Three 
{¶ 13} With regard to Count Three, the board found that a third client 
retained respondent to represent her in a personal injury action.  Respondent 
settled the matter for $10,000 in September 2005.  After having his client sign the 
settlement check, he negotiated the check in November 2005.  The board found 
that in February 2007, more than a year after the settlement, the client threatened 
to file a grievance if she did not receive her share of the settlement and that 
several weeks later respondent delivered $800 in cash to her home.  Although 
respondent had promised to provide the client’s file to relator, he failed to do so. 
{¶ 14} Based upon these factual findings, the board concluded that 
respondent’s conduct before February 1, 2007, violated DR 6-101(A)(3), 7-
101(A)(1),  7-101(A)(2), and 9-102(B)(4) (requiring a lawyer to promptly pay or 
deliver funds and property to which a client is entitled).  The board also found that 
his conduct after February 1, 2007 violated Prof.Cond.R. 1.15(a) (requiring a 
lawyer to hold property of clients separate from the lawyer’s own property) and 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO 
6 
 
1.15(d) (requiring a lawyer to promptly deliver funds or other property that the 
client is entitled to receive) and Gov.Bar R. V(4)(G). 
{¶ 15} We agree that respondent’s delay of more than a year before 
delivering $800 in settlement proceeds to his client violated DR 6-101(A)(3) and 
9-102(B)(4) and Prof.Cond.R. 1.15(d) and that his failure to cooperate in the 
ensuing disciplinary investigation violated Gov.Bar R. V(4)(G). 
{¶ 16} However, the relator has failed to satisfy its burden of proving the 
remaining allegations by clear and convincing evidence.  Specifically, we observe 
that the record contains no sworn or certified evidence tending to demonstrate that 
respondent intentionally failed to seek the lawful objectives of the client, 
intentionally failed to carry out a contract of employment, failed to hold the 
client’s funds separate from his own, or failed to deliver all of the settlement 
proceeds that the client was entitled to receive. 
{¶ 17} On the contrary, respondent’s uncontroverted, sworn deposition 
testimony demonstrates that he (1) filed a complaint on the client’s behalf, (2) 
obtained a $10,000 settlement, (3) deposited the settlement check into his trust 
account, (4) paid the client’s “very high” medical bills from the settlement 
proceeds, (5) distributed more than $800 to the client, and (6) did not use any of 
the money for his own expenses, with the exception of his one-third contingency 
fee.  Accordingly, we dismiss the alleged violations of   DR 7-101(A)(1) and 
(A)(2) and Prof.Cond.R. 1.15(a). 
Count Four 
{¶ 18} Despite having received a letter from relator seeking respondent’s 
reply to a fourth grievance, respondent did not participate in the disciplinary 
investigation of that grievance.  Furthermore, at his deposition, respondent agreed 
to provide relator with a copy of the client’s file, but he failed to do so.  
Therefore, the board found, and we agree, that respondent has violated Gov.Bar 
R. V(4)(G). 
January Term, 2010 
7 
 
Count Five 
{¶ 19} With regard to Count Five, the board found that respondent moved 
in the fall of 2008 and failed to provide his new residence and business addresses 
to the Office of Attorney Services.  As a result of this failure, respondent did not 
receive several of the letters that relator sent him.  At his deposition, respondent 
agreed to update his attorney-registration records, but to date, he has not done so.  
Accordingly, we agree that respondent’s conduct violates Gov.Bar R. VI(1)(D) 
(requiring attorneys to keep the Office of Attorney Services apprised of their 
residence and office addresses). 
Sanction 
{¶ 20} When imposing sanctions for attorney misconduct, we consider 
relevant factors, including the ethical duties that the lawyer violated and the 
sanctions imposed in similar cases.  Stark Cty. Bar Assn. v. Buttacavoli, 96 Ohio 
St.3d 424, 2002-Ohio-4743, 775 N.E.2d 818, ¶ 16.  In making a final 
determination, we also weigh evidence of the aggravating and mitigating factors 
listed in Section 10(B) of the Rules and Regulations Governing Procedure on 
Complaints and Hearings Before the Board of Commissioners on Grievances and 
Discipline (“BCGD Proc.Reg.”).  Disciplinary Counsel v. Broeren, 115 Ohio 
St.3d 473, 2007-Ohio-5251, 875 N.E.2d 935, ¶ 21. 
{¶ 21} In aggravation, the board found that respondent had committed 
multiple offenses, failed to cooperate in the disciplinary process, refused to 
acknowledge the wrongful nature of his conduct, and caused harm to vulnerable 
clients.  BCGD Proc.Reg. 10(B)(1)(d), (e), (g), and (h).  Respondent claimed to 
suffer from alcohol dependence and a mental disability.  But the board declined to 
consider those factors in mitigation because respondent did not introduce any 
competent medical evidence to establish either the diagnoses or their causal 
connection to his misconduct.  See BCGD Proc.Reg. 10(B)(2)(g)(i) and (ii).  The 
board found no other factors weighing in favor of a lesser sanction. 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO 
8 
 
{¶ 22} We have previously recognized that neglect of an entrusted legal 
matter and failure to cooperate in the ensuing disciplinary investigation generally 
warrant an indefinite suspension.  Disciplinary Counsel v. Hoff, 124 Ohio St.3d 
269, 2010-Ohio-136, 921 N.E.2d 636, ¶ 10; Disciplinary Counsel v. Mathewson, 
113 Ohio St.3d 365, 2007-Ohio-2076, 865 N.E.2d 891, ¶ 19. 
{¶ 23} Having reviewed the record, weighed the aggravating and 
mitigating factors, and considered the sanctions imposed for comparable conduct, 
we adopt the board’s recommended sanction of an indefinite suspension. 
{¶ 24} Accordingly, Joseph David Ohlin is indefinitely suspended from 
the practice of law in the state of Ohio.  Respondent’s reinstatement is 
conditioned upon his submission of proof that (1) any alcohol dependence and 
mental-health problems have been resolved, (2) he has followed all treatment 
recommendations, including compliance with his existing contract with the Ohio 
Lawyers Assistance Program, (3) he is able to return to the competent, ethical, 
and professional practice of law, and (4) he has paid the client discussed in Count 
Three all monies that she is entitled to receive from the proceeds of her 
settlement.  Furthermore, upon his reinstatement to the practice of law, respondent 
shall complete one year of monitored probation pursuant to Gov.Bar R. V(9).  
Costs are taxed to respondent. 
Judgment accordingly. 
 
PFEIFER, LUNDBERG STRATTON, O’CONNOR, O’DONNELL, LANZINGER, and 
CUPP, JJ., concur. 
 
BROWN, C.J., not participating. 
__________________ 
Jonathan E. Coughlan, Disciplinary Counsel, and Carol A. Costa, 
Assistant Disciplinary Counsel, for relator. 
______________________