Title: Erie-Huron Counties Joint Certified Grievance Commt. v. Derby

State: ohio

Issuer: Ohio Supreme Court

Document:

[Until this opinion appears in the Ohio Official Reports advance sheets, it may be cited as 
Erie-Huron Counties Joint Certified Grievance Commt. v. Derby, Slip Opinion No. 2012-Ohio-
78.] 
 
 
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. 2012-OHIO-78 
ERIE-HURON COUNTIES JOINT CERTIFIED  
GRIEVANCE COMMITTEE v. DERBY. 
[Until this opinion appears in the Ohio Official Reports advance sheets,  
it may be cited as Erie-Huron Counties Joint Certified Grievance Commt. v. 
Derby, Slip Opinion No. 2012-Ohio-78.] 
Attorney misconduct, including failing to act with reasonable diligence in 
representing clients, failing to keep clients reasonably informed, and 
failing to inform clients that the attorney lacks professional-liability 
insurance—Two-year suspension with 18 months stayed on conditions. 
(No. 2011-1036—Submitted August 8, 2011—Decided January 17, 2012.) 
ON CERTIFIED REPORT by the Board of Commissioners on Grievances and 
Discipline of the Supreme Court, No. 10-061. 
__________________ 
Per Curiam. 
{¶ 1} Respondent, Charles Paul Derby of Norwalk, Ohio, Attorney 
Registration No. 0055272, was admitted to the practice of law in Ohio in 1991.  In 
August 2010, relator, Erie-Huron Counties Joint Certified Grievance Committee, 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO 
2 
 
charged Derby with multiple violations of the Rules of Professional Conduct 
arising from his neglect of eight client bankruptcy matters, failure to reasonably 
communicate with his clients, and failure to notify his clients that he did not 
maintain malpractice insurance. 
{¶ 2} The evidence in this case includes the parties’ stipulations of fact, 
the testimony of five of the clients affected by Derby’s misconduct, the testimony 
of Stephanie Krznarich, the Clinical Director of the Ohio Lawyers Assistance 
Program (“OLAP”), and Derby’s admission that he committed the charged 
misconduct. 
{¶ 3} The panel and board accepted the parties’ stipulations, made 
findings of fact and misconduct, and recommend that we suspend Derby from the 
practice of law for 18 months, with 12 months stayed on conditions.  We adopt 
the board’s findings of fact and misconduct, but in light of the aggravating factors 
in this case and Derby’s need for ongoing mental-health and substance-abuse 
treatment, we conclude that a two-year suspension with 18 months stayed on the 
conditions recommended by the board, followed by two years of monitored 
probation, is the appropriate sanction. 
Factual Background and Misconduct 
{¶ 4} Derby began his solo law practice in 1995, and at the time of the 
misconduct, approximately one-half of his practice involved personal 
bankruptcies.  In 2004, his wife began assisting him in the management of his 
practice, serving as his paralegal and secretary.  Beginning in 2006, Derby faced 
significant stress in his personal life—his wife was gravely ill, and he became her 
primary caregiver.  Derby testified that when his wife died in May 2007, he 
mentally “shut down to a degree” and began to experience severe financial 
problems; he lost his home to foreclosure in 2008.  Derby contacted OLAP in 
April 2008 and entered into a three-year OLAP contract the following month to 
January Term, 2012 
3 
 
address his diagnoses of “alcohol dependence” and “adjustment disorder with 
depressed mood and disturbance in conduct.” 
{¶ 5} Derby admitted that he had engaged in a pattern of misconduct 
from late 2007 through 2009 and that he had committed all of the charged ethical 
violations.  Although Derby’s clients had paid him substantial retainers and filing 
fees, he neglected eight separate personal-bankruptcy matters and failed to keep 
his clients reasonably informed or to reply to their repeated requests for 
information.  In four of the matters, Derby failed to file bankruptcy petitions in a 
timely manner.  In the remaining four matters, the bankruptcy cases were 
dismissed because he did not file all of the necessary documentation.  In two of 
the matters, the bankruptcy court ordered Derby to disgorge fees and expenses 
that he had received from his clients.  Derby also failed to provide notice, in a 
writing signed by his clients, that he did not maintain malpractice insurance. 
{¶ 6} Derby’s clients testified that his failure to handle their legal matters 
in a timely and competent manner caused them personal stress and frustration 
because they continued to receive calls from creditors seeking payment of the 
debts they sought to discharge in bankruptcy.  At least one client was afraid that 
her wages would be garnished and that as a result, she would lose her job. 
{¶ 7} Derby has admitted, and the board has found, that he committed 
multiple violations of 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 a matter), 1.4(a)(4) (requiring a lawyer to 
comply as soon as practicable with reasonable requests for information from the 
client), and 
{¶ 8} 1.4(c) (requiring a lawyer to inform the client if the lawyer does 
not maintain professional-liability insurance). 
 
 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO 
4 
 
Sanction 
{¶ 9} 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. 
{¶ 10} As aggravating factors, the board found that Derby had engaged in 
a pattern of misconduct involving multiple offenses, that his clients were 
vulnerable and were harmed by his misconduct, and that Derby had failed to make 
restitution until the bankruptcy court ordered him to do so in two cases and relator 
counseled him to do so in the remaining cases.  See BCGD Proc.Reg. 10(B)(1)(c), 
(d), (h), and (i). 
{¶ 11} As mitigating factors, the board found that Derby does not have a 
prior disciplinary record, made full and free disclosure to the board, cooperated in 
the disciplinary process, and acknowledged the wrongful nature of his conduct.  
BCGD Proc.Reg. 10(B)(2)(a) and (d).  At relator’s urging, by the date of the 
disciplinary hearing, Derby had worked with grievants in seven of the eight 
affected client matters to either refund their money or complete their bankruptcy 
proceedings.  With respect to the remaining grievants, Tammy and Brian Harp, he 
has returned $600 of the $1,000 they advanced to him and has given them a 
promissory note for the remaining $400.  He testified that he is working manual-
labor jobs to raise the money to satisfy that obligation.  Therefore, the board 
found that Derby had made a good-faith effort to make restitution or rectify the 
consequences of his misconduct.  See BCGD Proc.Reg. 10(B)(2)(c). 
January Term, 2012 
5 
 
{¶ 12} Although the board determined that neither Derby’s alcohol abuse 
nor his depression qualified as a mitigating factor pursuant to BCGD Proc.Reg. 
10(B)(2)(g), it nonetheless, accorded some mitigating effect to his recovery 
efforts. 
{¶ 13} In considering the proper sanction for Derby’s misconduct, the 
board cites Erie-Huron Grievance Commt. v. Stoll, 127 Ohio St.3d 290, 2010-
Ohio-5985, 939 N.E.2d 166, and Dayton Bar Assn. v. Hunt, 127 Ohio St.3d 390, 
2010-Ohio-6148, 393 N.E.2d 1247.  In Stoll, the attorney had failed to file the 
documents necessary to close 20 separate probate estates, an accounting in a 
guardianship matter, and a settlement entry in a bankruptcy proceeding.  Stoll at 
¶ 3-4.  Although Stoll presented evidence that he suffered from depression and 
anxiety, he contacted OLAP only days before his disciplinary hearing and did not 
establish that his conditions were causally related to his misconduct.  Id. at ¶ 9.  
To ensure that Stoll was able to successfully manage his illness, we imposed a 
two-year suspension with one year conditionally stayed, and we conditioned his 
reinstatement upon the submission of medical proof establishing his ability to 
competently and ethically practice law and on his continued compliance with his 
OLAP contract.  Id. at 13-14.  We also ordered that upon reinstatement, he serve a 
two-year period of monitored probation.  Id. at ¶ 14. 
{¶ 14} In Hunt, however, we imposed a six-month suspension based upon 
the attorney’s neglect of a single client matter, his failure to keep that client 
reasonably informed about the status of the matter, and his failure to respond to 
the relator’s investigation of a separate client grievance.  Hunt, ¶ 5-8, 11.  
{¶ 15} Here, the board found that Derby’s conduct was more egregious 
than that of Hunt and less egregious than that of Stoll, and therefore recommends 
that we suspend him from the practice of law for 18 months with 12 months 
stayed on the conditions that he (1) renew his OLAP contract when it expires, for 
the period of time recommended by OLAP, (2) fully comply with all OLAP 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO 
6 
 
recommendations, including regular attendance of Alcoholics Anonymous 
meetings, (3) make full restitution to his former clients Tammy and Brian Hart, 
and (4) commit no further misconduct.  Additionally, the board recommends that 
Derby’s reinstatement be conditioned upon the certification of a qualified 
psychiatrist that he is able to return to the competent, ethical, and professional 
practice of law, and that during the period of his stayed suspension and for two 
years following that suspension, Derby be under the supervision of a monitor 
appointed by relator. 
{¶ 16} We find, however, that respondent’s conduct is more comparable 
to that of Stoll and to the attorney in Disciplinary Counsel v. Clark (1997), 78 
Ohio St.3d 302, 302-303, 677 N.E.2d 1181.  In Clark, we imposed a two-year 
suspension with one year stayed on conditions, citing the “repetitive nature” of 
Clark’s violations, involving the acceptance of retainers from two clients, failure 
to perform any meaningful work, and failure to return the retainers until just 
before his disciplinary hearing.  Due to aggravating factors present in this case 
and Derby’s need for ongoing mental-health and substance-abuse treatment, we 
conclude that a two-year suspension with the final 18 months stayed on the 
conditions recommended by relator, followed by two years of monitored 
probation, is necessary to protect the public. 
{¶ 17} Accordingly, we suspend Charles Paul Derby from the practice of 
law in Ohio for two years, with the final 18 months stayed on the conditions that 
he (1) immediately renew his OLAP contract, if he has not already done so, for 
the period of time recommended by OLAP, (2) fully comply with all OLAP 
recommendations, including regular attendance of Alcoholics Anonymous 
meetings, (3) make full restitution to his former clients Tammy and Brian Hart, 
and (4) commit no further misconduct.  Derby’s reinstatement will be conditioned 
upon the certification of a qualified psychiatrist that he is able to return to the 
competent, ethical, and professional practice of law.  During the period of his 
January Term, 2012 
7 
 
stayed suspension and for two years following that suspension, he must submit to 
the supervision of a monitor appointed by relator in accordance with Gov.Bar R. 
V(9).  If Derby fails to comply with the conditions, the stay will be lifted and he 
will serve the entire two-year suspension.  Costs are taxed to Derby. 
Judgment accordingly. 
O’CONNOR, C.J., and PFEIFER, LUNDBERG STRATTON, O’DONNELL, 
LANZINGER, CUPP, and MCGEE BROWN, JJ., concur. 
__________________ 
James J. Martin and Richard B. Hauser, for relator. 
Charles Paul Derby, pro se. 
______________________