Title: Disciplinary Counsel v. Selby

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. Selby, Slip Opinion No. 2019-Ohio-1894.] 
 
 
 
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. 2019-OHIO-1894 
DISCIPLINARY COUNSEL v. SELBY. 
[Until this opinion appears in the Ohio Official Reports advance sheets, it 
may be cited as Disciplinary Counsel v. Selby, Slip Opinion No.  
2019-Ohio-1894.] 
Attorneys—Misconduct—Violations of the Rules of Professional Conduct—
Conditionally stayed one-year suspension. 
(No. 2018-1754—Submitted January 9, 2019—Decided May 22, 2019.) 
ON CERTIFIED REPORT by the Board of Professional Conduct of the Supreme 
Court, No. 2018-037. 
______________ 
Per Curiam. 
{¶ 1} Respondent, Joan Patricia Selby, of Canton, Ohio, Attorney 
Registration No. 0024557, was admitted to the practice of law in Ohio in 1978. 
{¶ 2} In a formal complaint certified to the Board of Professional Conduct 
on June 27, 2018, relator, disciplinary counsel, charged Selby with professional 
misconduct arising from her neglect of a legal matter and her failure to reasonably 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO 
 
2
communicate with her clients in that matter.  A panel of the board considered the 
cause on the parties’ consent-to-discipline agreement.  See Gov.Bar R. V(16). 
{¶ 3} The parties stipulated that in March 2016, Brian and Deidre Deckman 
met with Selby to determine how they could ensure that their son, Michael, could 
remain in their home in the event that they needed to be placed in a nursing home.  
Selby suggested that she prepare a quitclaim deed to grant a life estate to Michael 
and indicated that this would allow Michael to stay in the home for his lifetime. 
{¶ 4} Selby drafted a quitclaim deed containing a life-estate provision and 
sent it to the Deckmans, but the deed incorrectly identified Michael as the 
homeowner and the Deckmans as the recipients of the life estate.  Selby corrected 
the errors and on March 25, 2016, the Deckmans signed the deed.  They paid Selby 
$178 to prepare and record the deed.  Thereafter, the Deckmans attempted to 
contact Selby on multiple occasion to confirm that she had recorded the deed.  On 
the two occasions that Brian Deckman reached Selby by phone, she told him that 
she would record the deed—but she never did. 
{¶ 5} In April 2017, the Deckmans filed a grievance against Selby.  Relator 
sent Selby a letter of inquiry by certified mail to both her business and home 
addresses, but the letters were returned marked unclaimed.  On July 10, 2017, 
relator’s investigator attempted to hand-deliver a letter of inquiry to Selby at her 
home and business addresses.  The investigator also called Selby and left a message, 
but Selby did not return the call.  Unable to locate Selby, the investigator taped the 
letter in a sealed envelope to the front door of her residence. 
{¶ 6} On August 23, 2017, relator’s investigator hand-delivered a subpoena 
to Selby that ordered her to appear for a September 12, 2017 deposition.  Several 
days later, Selby prepared a written response to the Deckmans’ grievance.  In her 
response, Selby stated that the Deckmans had paid her just $150, stated that she 
was willing to refund that payment, and offered to record the quitclaim deed or 
January Term, 2019 
 
3
return it to the Deckmans.  After receiving that written response, relator canceled 
Selby’s deposition. 
{¶ 7} In response to relator’s request for additional information, the 
Deckmans stated that they still wanted Selby to record the deed.  On October 25, 
2017, relator sent Selby a letter that conveyed the Deckmans’ wishes and instructed 
Selby not to record the deed until she provided relator the legal basis and rationale 
of her decision to draft a quitclaim deed for the Deckmans.  Selby, however, failed 
to respond to relator’s letter.  In late November, relator’s investigator hand-
delivered a copy of the October 25 letter, and Selby submitted a written response 
approximately two weeks later. 
{¶ 8} On December 22, 2017, relator sent Selby a letter by e-mail, fax, and 
regular mail directing her to record the Deckmans’ deed before January 5, 2018, or 
propose an alternative recording date by December 27, 2017.  On December 27, 
2017, relator left a voicemail message for Selby asking her to confirm receipt of 
the letter and the deadline for recording the deed.  The next day, relator left another 
message and sent Selby an e-mail reiterating the deadline. 
{¶ 9} On January 2, 2018, Selby sent an e-mail to relator stating that she 
had been out of the office since Christmas and that she would record the deed that 
week.  But Selby did not record the deed as promised and failed to respond to any 
of relator’s additional communications until sometime after the board certified the 
complaint on June 27, 2018.  She refunded the Deckmans’ $178 payment on 
October 17, 2018. 
{¶ 10} The parties stipulated and the board found that the conduct set forth 
above violated Prof.Cond.R. 1.3 (requiring a lawyer to act with reasonable 
diligence in representing a client) and 8.1(b) (prohibiting a lawyer from failing to 
disclose a material fact in response to a demand for information from a disciplinary 
authority) and Gov.Bar R. V(9)(G) (prohibiting a lawyer from neglecting or 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO 
 
4
refusing to assist in a disciplinary investigation).  Relator agreed to dismiss one 
additional alleged rule violation. 
{¶ 11} The parties stipulated that just one aggravating factor is present—
Selby committed multiple offenses, see Gov.Bar R. V(13)(B)(4).  As mitigating 
factors, the parties stipulated to the absence of a prior disciplinary record, the 
absence of a dishonest or selfish motive, evidence of Selby’s good character or 
reputation, and her cooperation with the disciplinary process after the complaint 
was certified.  See Gov.Bar R. V(13)(C)(1), (2), (4), and (5). 
{¶ 12} The board recommends that we accept the parties’ consent-to-
discipline agreement and suspend Selby from the practice of law for one year, with 
the entire suspension stayed on the conditions that she participate in a one-year 
mentoring program with a mentor approved by relator, submit to an evaluation by 
the Ohio Lawyers’ Assistance Program (“OLAP”) and comply with any 
recommendations resulting from that evaluation, and refrain from further 
misconduct.  Of the cases the parties cited to support that recommended sanction, 
the board found Toledo Bar Assn. v. Farah, 125 Ohio St.3d 455, 2010-Ohio-2116, 
928 N.E.2d 1097, to be most relevant.  Farah neglected a client’s legal matter and 
failed to cooperate in the initial disciplinary investigation.  Like Selby, however, 
Farah cooperated fully in the proceedings before the board, had no prior discipline, 
and did not act with a selfish or dishonest motive.  We imposed a one-year 
suspension for Farah’s misconduct but stayed the entire suspension on the 
conditions that he submit to a mental-health evaluation conducted by OLAP, 
comply with all OLAP treatment recommendations, and serve a one-year period of 
monitored probation. 
{¶ 13} Based on the foregoing, we agree that Selby’s conduct violated 
Prof.Cond.R. 1.3 and 8.1(b) and Gov.Bar R. V(9)(G) and that a one-year 
suspension, stayed on the recommended conditions, is the appropriate sanction for 
that misconduct.  We therefore accept the parties’ consent-to-discipline agreement. 
January Term, 2019 
 
5
{¶ 14} Accordingly, Joan Patricia Selby is suspended from the practice of 
law in Ohio for one year, with the entire suspension stayed on the conditions that 
she participate in a one-year mentoring program with a mentor approved by relator, 
submit to an evaluation by OLAP and comply with any recommendations resulting 
from that evaluation, and refrain from further misconduct.  If Selby fails to comply 
with a condition of the stay, the stay will be lifted and she will serve the full one-
year suspension.  Costs are taxed to Selby. 
Judgment accordingly. 
O’CONNOR, C.J., and FRENCH, FISCHER, DEWINE, DONNELLY, and 
STEWART, JJ., concur. 
KENNEDY, J., dissents and would remand the cause to the Board of 
Professional Conduct. 
_________________ 
Scott J. Drexel, Disciplinary Counsel, and Lia J. Meehan, Assistant 
Disciplinary Counsel, for relator. 
Buckingham, Doolittle & Burroughs, L.L.C., and Peter T. Cahoon, for 
respondent. 
_________________