Title: Northwestern Ohio Bar Assn. v. Schnitkey

State: ohio

Issuer: Ohio Supreme Court

Document:

[Cite as Northwestern Ohio Bar Assn. v. Schnitkey, 94 Ohio St.3d 135, 2002-Ohio-1056.] 
 
 
NORTHWESTERN OHIO BAR ASSOCIATION v. SCHNITKEY. 
[Cite as Northwestern Ohio Bar Assn. v. Schnitkey (2002), 94 Ohio St.3d 135.] 
Attorneys at law — Misconduct — Public reprimand — Neglecting entrusted 
legal matters. 
(No. 01-1262 — Submitted August 28, 2001 — Decided January 9, 2002.) 
ON CERTIFIED REPORT by the Board of Commissioners on Grievances and 
Discipline of the Supreme Court, No. 98-77. 
__________________ 
 
Per Curiam.  During 1996 and 1997, respondent, Mark D. Schnitkey of 
Napoleon, Ohio, Attorney Registration No. 0006075, represented several clients 
who entrusted him with legal matters that relator, Northwestern Ohio Bar 
Association, charges that he neglected.  Relator filed a complaint with the Board 
of Commissioners on Grievances and Discipline (“board”) on November 12, 
1998, alleging violations of the Code of Professional Responsibility.  After a 
hearing before a panel and after review of the panel’s recommendation, the board 
determined that respondent had committed two violations of DR 6-101(A)(3) (a 
lawyer shall not neglect an entrusted legal matter) and recommended that he be 
publicly reprimanded for this misconduct.  We adopt the board’s findings of 
misconduct and its recommendation. 
 
Respondent violated DR 6-101(A)(3) by having neglected the interest of 
Joann McCabe Reitz and her business partner in recovering money from a failed 
restaurant purchase.  McCabe Reitz telephoned respondent repeatedly over an 
eight-month period to learn the status of her case but had no success.  Respondent 
ultimately withdrew his representation due to a conflict of interest and 
purportedly advised McCabe Reitz of the withdrawal by letter.  McCabe Reitz did 
not receive it. 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO 
2 
 
Respondent further violated DR 6-101(A)(3) by having neglected the 
interest of Michele Aelker in obtaining an order modifying her child’s visitation 
schedule.  Aelker also attempted to reach respondent for months with little 
success.  And after assuring Aelker that he had moved the court for relief in 
August 1997, respondent failed to check on the status of his motion and later 
learned that his secretary had never filed it.  Respondent’s mistake was discovered 
only when Aelker called the court in January 1998. 
 
Respondent has been in practice since 1985, and he has never before 
received a disciplinary sanction.  At the hearing, he accepted complete 
responsibility for his misconduct and expressed his sincere remorse that he had let 
down his clients.  He has already refunded his clients’ money and made sure that 
no client was financially harmed by his mistakes.  Respondent has also changed 
his office procedures to ensure that he will not repeat his misconduct, including 
having instituted a reliable system for keeping track of court filings and answering 
telephone calls.  Respondent additionally provided letters from clients and judges 
for the board’s review, all of whom described their confidence in and respect for 
his professional competence. 
 
In light of these mitigating considerations, we agree with the board that 
respondent should receive the recommended public reprimand.  Respondent is 
therefore publicly reprimanded for his violations of DR 6-101(A)(3).  Costs are 
taxed to respondent. 
Judgment accordingly. 
 
MOYER, C.J., DOUGLAS, RESNICK, F.E. SWEENEY, PFEIFER, COOK and 
LUNDBERG STRATTON, JJ., concur. 
__________________ 
 
Michael W. Spangler, for relator. 
 
Mark D. Schnitkey, pro se. 
__________________