Title: Stark Cty. Bar Assn. v. Kelley

State: ohio

Issuer: Ohio Supreme Court

Document:

[Until this opinion appears in the Ohio Official Reports advance sheets, it may be cited as 
Stark Cty. Bar Assn. v. Kelley, Slip Opinion No. 2021-Ohio-770.] 
 
 
 
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. 2021-OHIO-770 
STARK COUNTY BAR ASSOCIATION v. KELLEY. 
[Until this opinion appears in the Ohio Official Reports advance sheets, it 
may be cited as Stark Cty. Bar Assn. v. Kelley, Slip Opinion No.  
2021-Ohio-770.] 
Attorneys—Misconduct—Violations of the Rules of Professional Conduct, 
including failure to act with reasonable diligence in representing a client 
and withdrawing from representation of a client despite material adverse 
effects on the interests of the client—Several mitigating factors, including 
the absence of a prior disciplinary record and other interim 
rehabilitation—Conditionally stayed two-year suspension. 
(No. 2020-0970—Submitted January 13, 2021—Decided March 16, 2021.) 
ON CERTIFIED REPORT by the Board of Professional Conduct 
of the Supreme Court, No. 2019-056. 
 
 
______________ 
  
Per Curiam. 
{¶ 1} Respondent, Paul Michael Kelley, of Uniontown, Ohio, Attorney 
Registration No. 0088148, was admitted to the practice of law in Ohio in 2011. 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO 
 
2
{¶ 2} In a November 4, 2019 complaint, relator, Stark County Bar 
Association, alleged that among other things, Kelley neglected 15 separate clients, 
failed to reasonably communicate with those clients, and ultimately abandoned 
their representation without obtaining required court approval or making 
reasonable efforts to protect their legal interests. 
{¶ 3} The parties entered into stipulations of fact and Kelley admitted to 
most of the charged misconduct.  A three-member panel of the Board of 
Professional Conduct conducted a hearing during which it heard testimony from 
Kelley and two other witnesses.  The panel largely accepted the parties’ 
stipulations of fact and misconduct but unanimously dismissed a few of the 
charges against Kelley based on relator’s recommendation or upon finding that 
they were not proven by clear and convincing evidence.  Based on Kelley’s 
misconduct and the relevant aggravating and mitigating factors, the panel 
recommended that we adopt the parties’ stipulated sanction of a two-year 
conditionally stayed suspension.  The board adopted the panel’s findings of fact, 
conclusions of law, and recommendation. 
{¶ 4} We adopt the board’s findings of misconduct and agree that a 
conditionally stayed two-year suspension is the appropriate sanction for Kelley’s 
misconduct. 
Facts and Misconduct 
{¶ 5} During a 24-hour period in early March 2018, emergency medical 
personnel twice transported Kelley to a local hospital for psychiatric evaluation.  
The first time, Kelley was medically cleared and discharged, but the second time, 
he was taken from the hospital to an inpatient mental-health-and-chemical-
dependency facility after acknowledging that he was suffering from suicidal 
ideations and had recently abused several substances, including cocaine and 
Adderall. 
January Term, 2021 
 
3
{¶ 6} After he was admitted to the rehabilitation center, Kelley had his 
girlfriend place the following message on his office-telephone answering 
machine: 
 
This is on behalf of Attorney Paul Kelley.  He is no longer 
able to take on any new cases or continue with any cases that he 
currently has due to health reasons.  He is immediately out of 
commission and any cases that are currently active will need to be 
reassigned to a new lawyer.  If you have a current active case 
please contact the county bar association in which your case 
resides.  If it is Stark County the phone number is 330-453-0685 
and if not then please contact the prosecutor’s office to get new 
counsel. 
 
{¶ 7} At that time, Kelley represented at least 15 clients in domestic-
relations and criminal matters that were pending in Stark, Wayne, Trumbull, and 
Mahoning counties.  He missed at least one hearing and made no arrangements to 
communicate with his clients, to continue representing them, or to withdraw as 
counsel in their pending court proceedings. 
{¶ 8} Patrick Cusma, a member of the Stark County Bar Association who 
had recently confronted Kelley with suspicions of Kelley’s substance abuse, heard 
rumors that Kelley was in trouble and called to check on him.  Cusma heard the 
outgoing message on Kelley’s answering machine and left a message offering to 
help.  Cusma arranged to obtain client files from Kelley’s girlfriend and transfer 
them to himself and other attorneys, all of whom had agreed to represent Kelley’s 
affected clients pro bono.  Kelley did not assist Cusma in that effort. 
{¶ 9} In December 2018, Kelley suffered a relapse of his addiction and 
was again hospitalized.  At that time, Kelley’s girlfriend discovered 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO 
 
4
approximately 20 client files that Kelley had left in the trunk of her car (which he 
had abandoned at a gas station in Akron) and delivered them to relator’s counsel. 
{¶ 10} Kelley admitted that he abandoned 15 clients as a result of his 
substance-abuse and mental-health issues.  He also stipulated, and the board 
found, that his conduct with respect to those clients violated five Rules of 
Professional Conduct, namely Prof.Cond.R. 1.3 (requiring a lawyer to act with 
reasonable diligence in representing a client), 1.4(a)(3) (requiring a lawyer to 
keep the client reasonably informed about the status of the matter), 1.16(b)(1) 
(permitting a lawyer to withdraw from the representation of a client if the 
withdrawal can be accomplished without material adverse effect on the interests 
of the client), 1.16(c) (prohibiting a lawyer from withdrawing from representation 
in a proceeding without leave of court if the rules of the tribunal so require), and 
1.16(d)(3) (requiring a lawyer withdrawing from representation to take steps that 
are reasonably practicable to protect a client’s interest).  The board also found that 
Kelley violated Prof.Cond.R. 1.4(a)(2) (requiring a lawyer to reasonably consult 
with the client about the means by which the client’s objectives are to be 
accomplished) and 1.4(a)(4) (requiring a lawyer to comply as soon as practicable 
with reasonable requests for information from a client) with respect to each of the 
15 affected clients.  However, we find that those violations were charged only 
with respect to one of the affected clients and therefore, we limit our findings 
accordingly.  Additionally, the board found that Kelley’s abandonment of client 
files in his girlfriend’s car violated Prof.Cond.R. 1.15(a) (requiring a lawyer to 
properly hold and safeguard property of clients that is in a lawyer’s possession in 
connection with a representation) and 1.6(c) (requiring a lawyer to make 
reasonable efforts to prevent the inadvertent or unauthorized disclosure or 
unauthorized access to information related to the representation of a client). 
{¶ 11} We adopt these amended findings of misconduct. 
 
 
January Term, 2021 
 
5
Stipulated Sanction 
{¶ 12} When imposing sanctions for attorney misconduct, we consider all 
relevant factors, including the ethical duties that the lawyer violated, the 
aggravating and mitigating factors listed in Gov.Bar R. V(13), and the sanctions 
imposed in similar cases. 
{¶ 13} The parties stipulated and the board found that one aggravating 
factor is present:  Kelley committed multiple rule violations that involved 
multiple clients.  See Gov.Bar R. V(13)(B)(4).  As for mitigating factors, the 
board adopted the parties’ stipulations that Kelley had no prior discipline, had no 
dishonest or selfish motive, had made full and free disclosure to the board and 
demonstrated a cooperative attitude toward the disciplinary proceedings, and had 
other interim rehabilitation—namely, treatment for his addiction.  See Gov.Bar R. 
V(13)(C)(1), (2), (4), and (8). 
{¶ 14} Kelley became addicted to stimulant medication that had been 
prescribed to treat a disorder first diagnosed during his childhood.  At his 
disciplinary hearing, Saraha Martincak, a licensed chemical-dependency 
counselor, testified that she had diagnosed Kelley with moderate opioid-use 
disorder, moderate sedative- and hypnotic-use disorder, and severe amphetamine-
type-use disorder associated with a cycle of using stimulants to get high and 
opioids or sedatives to come down from that high.  The evidence shows that 
Kelley’s addiction and subsequent admission to a drug-treatment facility in March 
2018 contributed to cause his misconduct.  Although Kelley did not present 
certification that he had successfully completed an approved treatment program, 
see Gov.Bar R. V(13)(C)(7)(c), Martincak reported that Kelley had completed 11 
weeks of a 12-week outpatient treatment program during the summer of 2018.  
And according to a May 14, 2020 report from Paul A. Caimi, associate director of 
the Ohio Lawyers Assistance Program (“OLAP”), Kelley has followed 
Martincak’s treatment recommendations and is in compliance with the terms of a 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO 
 
6
three-year OLAP contract he entered into in January 2018, although he suffered 
several relapses.  That contract required him to participate in an outpatient 
treatment program consisting of individual and group therapy, to attend multiple 
12-step meetings (e.g., Alcoholics Anonymous or Narcotics Anonymous) per 
week, and to submit to random drug screenings.  In addition, Caimi reported that 
Kelley had abstained from all mind-altering drugs, including alcohol, for 11 
months.  Martincak testified that with one year of sobriety, Kelley would achieve 
sustained remission.  She also opined that he could safely practice law, provided 
that he continued to abide by her existing treatment recommendations and 
remained in compliance with the conditions of his OLAP contract.  On these 
facts, we find that although Kelley has not established his substance-use disorder 
as a mitigating factor pursuant to Gov.Bar R. V(13)(C)(7), his interim 
rehabilitation nonetheless warrants mitigating effect.  See Gov.Bar R. 
V(13)(C)(8). 
{¶ 15} The board recommends that we adopt the parties’ stipulated 
sanction of a two-year suspension, stayed in its entirety on conditions designed to 
preserve Kelley’s sobriety and develop his law-office-management skills.  The 
board notes that we have imposed comparable sanctions on attorneys who have 
engaged in similar acts of misconduct fueled by a qualifying substance-use or 
mental-health disorder.  In Columbus Bar Assn. v. Allerding, 123 Ohio St.3d 382, 
2009-Ohio-5589, 916 N.E.2d 808, an attorney neglected two legal matters for 
approximately one year, failed to competently represent one of those clients, 
failed to promptly deliver funds or property that his clients were entitled to 
receive, and initially failed to cooperate in one of the ensuing disciplinary 
investigations.  Like Kelley, Allerding had committed multiple offenses and had 
no prior disciplinary record or selfish or dishonest motive, though he also had a 
mitigating substance-use disorder.  We suspended Allerding from the practice of 
January Term, 2021 
 
7
law for two years, but stayed the entire suspension on conditions designed to 
ensure the continued treatment and management of his alcoholism. 
{¶ 16} In Columbus Bar Assn. v. Bulson, 160 Ohio St.3d 208, 2020-Ohio-
3001, 155 N.E.3d 843, we imposed a conditionally stayed 18-month suspension 
on an attorney who neglected three client matters, failed to reasonably 
communicate with those clients, improperly managed his client trust account, 
failed to promptly return unearned fees and property to his clients, and failed to 
cooperate in the ensuing disciplinary investigations.  Although Bulson had a prior 
attorney-registration suspension, engaged in a pattern of misconduct, committed 
multiple offenses, did not initially cooperate in the disciplinary process, and 
harmed vulnerable clients, he did not act with a selfish motive, cooperated in the 
disciplinary process once an amended complaint was filed, submitted evidence of 
his good character and reputation, and established the existence of a qualifying 
mitigating mental disorder. 
{¶ 17} Although Kelley’s misconduct involved a greater number of clients 
than the misconduct in Allerding and Bulson, it appears that his abandonment of 
those clients was relatively short lived—thanks to the quick action of Cusma and 
his colleagues in the Stark County Bar Association.  The record shows that Kelley 
is committed to his sobriety and mental health; in fact, he recognized that he had a 
problem and entered into his OLAP contract approximately six weeks before his 
March 2018 hospitalization.  He also testified that he resumed the practice of law 
in the summer of 2019 and that he has hired two paralegals to assist him with his 
practice.  Moreover, Kelley testified that he had voluntarily paid the attorneys 
who assisted his clients a total of $4,900, and intended to pay them a total of 
$12,750, the fair-market value of their services.  Cusma confirmed that Kelley 
began making those payments several months before his disciplinary hearing. 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO 
 
8
{¶ 18} After independently reviewing the record and relevant precedent, 
we agree that a two-year suspension, stayed in its entirety on the conditions 
recommended by the board is the appropriate sanction in this case. 
Conclusion 
{¶ 19} Accordingly, Paul Michael Kelley is suspended from the practice 
of law for two years, with the entire suspension stayed on the conditions that he 
(1) remains in compliance with the terms of his January 27, 2018 OLAP contract 
and enters into an additional two-year contract upon the issuance of the final order 
in this case, (2) completes three hours of continuing legal education focused on 
law-office management, in addition to the requirements of Gov.Bar R. X, (3) 
serves a two-year period of monitored probation in accordance with Gov.Bar R. 
V(21), with monitoring focused on law-office management and compliance with 
his OLAP contract, and (4) engages in no further misconduct.  If Kelley fails to 
comply with any condition of the stay, the stay will be lifted and he will serve the 
entire two-year suspension.  Costs are taxed to Kelley. 
Judgment accordingly. 
O’CONNOR, C.J., and FISCHER, DEWINE, DONNELLY, STEWART, and 
BRUNNER, JJ., concur. 
KENNEDY, J., concurs in judgment only. 
_________________ 
Richard S. Milligan, Bar Counsel, and Anthony E. Brown, for relator. 
Paul Michael Kelley, pro se. 
_________________