Title: Ohio State Bar Assn. v. Owen

State: ohio

Issuer: Ohio Supreme Court

Document:

[Until this opinion appears in the Ohio Official Reports advance sheets, it may be cited as 
Ohio State Bar Assn. v. Owen, Slip Opinion No. 2016-Ohio-864.] 
 
 
 
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. 2016-OHIO-864 
OHIO STATE BAR ASSOCIATION v. OWEN. 
[Until this opinion appears in the Ohio Official Reports advance sheets, it 
may be cited as Ohio State Bar Assn. v. Owen, Slip Opinion No.  
2016-Ohio-864.] 
Attorneys—Misconduct—Failure to properly notify clients that lawyer did not 
maintain minimum level of professional liability insurance—Public 
reprimand. 
(No. 2015-1317—Submitted September 15, 2015—Decided March 9, 2016.) 
ON CERTIFIED REPORT by the Board of Professional Conduct of the Supreme 
Court of Ohio, No. 2014-089. 
_______________________ 
Per Curiam. 
{¶ 1} Respondent, Christopher Stanley Owen of Moraine, Ohio, Attorney 
Registration No. 0080766, was admitted to the practice of law in Ohio in 2006.  In 
December 2014, relator, Ohio State Bar Association, charged him with violating 
the Rules of Professional Conduct regulating, among other things, client 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO 
 
2
communications, client trust accounts, fee agreements, and the sale and purchase 
of a law practice.  After a hearing, a three-member panel of the Board of 
Professional Conduct unanimously dismissed all of the charged rule violations 
except one:  the panel found that Owen had violated Prof.Cond.R. 1.4(c) by 
failing to properly inform clients that his law firm did not maintain professional 
liability insurance.  The board adopted the panel’s findings of fact and misconduct 
and recommends that we sanction him with a public reprimand.  Neither party has 
filed objections to the board’s report and recommendation.  Based on our 
independent review of the record, we accept the board’s findings and publicly 
reprimand Owen for his misconduct. 
Misconduct 
{¶ 2} If a lawyer does not maintain certain levels of professional liability 
insurance, Prof.Cond.R. 1.4(c) requires the lawyer to notify each client of that fact 
at the time of engagement.  The rule specifically mandates that the notice be 
provided to the client “on a separate form” and that the form be signed by the 
client and include the following language:  “I acknowledge receipt of the notice 
required by Rule 1.4 of the Ohio Rules of Professional Conduct that [insert 
attorney’s name] does not maintain professional liability (malpractice) insurance 
of at least $100,000 per occurrence and $300,000 in the aggregate.”  (Brackets 
sic.) 
{¶ 3} Here, the board found that when Owen was employed as the 
managing attorney in the Moraine, Ohio office of an out-of-state law firm, he 
provided clients with a firm-generated document listing several disclaimers, 
including that the law firm did not maintain outside malpractice insurance.  The 
notice, however, was not on a separate form; it cited the former version of the 
applicable rule, DR 1-104; and it did not use the language prescribed in 
Prof.Cond.R. 1.4(c).  Additionally, the notice indicated that rather than 
maintaining outside malpractice insurance, the law firm was “wholly self-
January Term, 2016 
 
3
insured.”  The board found that Owen had failed to research or independently 
determine whether the notice was compliant with the Ohio Rules of Professional 
Conduct, and the board noted that the self-insurance language was potentially 
confusing because clients may not have understood the difference between self-
insurance and insurance coverage provided by the terms of a malpractice policy 
purchased from a third-party insurer.  Accordingly, the board found that Owen 
had failed to comply with the specific requirements in Prof.Cond.R. 1.4(c).  We 
agree. 
Sanction 
{¶ 4} When imposing sanctions for attorney misconduct, we consider 
several 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 Gov.Bar R. V(13). 
{¶ 5} As aggravating factors, the board found that Owen committed 
multiple offenses by using the defective notice form when representing multiple 
clients and that he refused to acknowledge the wrongful nature of his conduct.  
See Gov.Bar R. V(13)(B)(4) and (7).  In mitigation, the board found that Owen 
has no prior discipline, lacked a dishonest or selfish motive, made full and free 
disclosures to the board and cooperated in the disciplinary process, and possesses 
excellent character and reputation.  See Gov.Bar R. V(13)(C)(1), (2), (4), and (5).  
The board also noted that there was no evidence that any clients were harmed by 
his misconduct. 
{¶ 6} Based on this record, the board recommends that we publicly 
reprimand Owen.  We have imposed that same sanction on attorneys who 
similarly failed to provide their clients with proper written notice that they did not 
maintain professional liability insurance.  Columbus Bar Assn. v. Roy, 143 Ohio 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO 
 
4
St.3d 60, 2015-Ohio-1190, 34 N.E.3d 108; Akron Bar Assn. v. DeLoach, 133 
Ohio St.3d 329, 2012-Ohio-4629, 978 N.E.2d 181. 
{¶ 7} Accordingly, 
having 
considered 
Owen’s 
misconduct, 
the 
aggravating and mitigating factors, and the sanctions imposed in comparable 
cases, we agree that a public reprimand is the appropriate sanction in this case.  
Christopher Stanley Owen is hereby publicly reprimanded for his failure to 
comply with Prof.Cond.R. 1.4(c).  Costs are taxed to Owen. 
Judgment accordingly. 
O’CONNOR, C.J., and PFEIFER, O’DONNELL, LANZINGER, KENNEDY, 
FRENCH, and O’NEILL, JJ., concur. 
_________________ 
Crabbe, Brown & James, L.L.P., and Robert J. Gehring; and Eugene P. 
Whetzel, Bar Counsel, for relator. 
James E. Arnold & Associates, L.P.A., and Alvin E. Mathews Jr., for 
respondent. 
_________________