Title: Disciplinary Counsel v. Travis

State: ohio

Issuer: Ohio Supreme Court

Document:

[Cite as Disciplinary Counsel v. Travis, 101 Ohio St.3d 322, 2004-Ohio-785.] 
 
 
DISCIPLINARY COUNSEL v. TRAVIS. 
[Cite as Disciplinary Counsel v. Travis, 101 Ohio St.3d 322, 2004-Ohio-785.] 
Attorneys at law — Misconduct — Two-year suspension with second year of 
sanction stayed on conditions — Engaging in conduct adversely 
reflecting on fitness to practice law — Neglect of entrusted legal matters 
— Causing prejudice or damage to clients during representation. 
(No. 2003-1533 — Submitted October 20, 2003 — Decided March 10, 2004.) 
ON CERTIFIED REPORT by the Board of Commissioners on Grievances and 
Discipline of the Supreme Court, No. 02-80. 
____________________ 
 
Per Curiam. 
{¶1} 
Respondent, Christopher T. Travis of Lebanon, Ohio, Attorney 
Registration No. 0067699, was admitted to the Ohio bar in 1997.  On October 7, 
2002, relator, Disciplinary Counsel, filed a complaint charging respondent with 
28 counts of professional misconduct.  A panel of the Board of Commissioners on 
Grievances and Discipline heard the cause, including the parties’ comprehensive 
stipulations as to the charged misconduct and underlying facts, and made findings 
of fact, conclusions of law, and a recommendation. 
{¶2} 
The parties stipulated that from June 1998 until November 2001, 
respondent accepted 27 court appointments to represent clients before the Twelfth 
District Court of Appeals in appeals of the judgments against them.  Twenty-
seven of the 28 counts in relator’s complaint arose from these cases.  The other 
count arose from an appeal that a client hired respondent to pursue. 
{¶3} 
The panel found, as stipulated, that respondent failed to file a brief 
in 23 of these 28 cases and that this resulted in the dismissal of 21 appeals and the 
appointment of new counsel in the other two appeals.  The remaining five appeals 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO 
2 
were dismissed for respondent’s failure to file the trial court’s record.  Most of the 
neglected cases involved clients’ appeals of criminal convictions, at least 12 of 
which were for felonies.  Three cases were appeals of juvenile delinquency 
adjudications, and seven cases involved issues of child custody or other matters of 
family law. 
{¶4} 
The panel found, consistent with the stipulations, that respondent 
had violated DR 1-102(A)(6) (engaging in conduct that adversely reflects on an 
attorney’s fitness to practice law) and 6-101(A)(3) (neglecting an entrusted legal 
matter) in connection with all 28 counts of misconduct.  Also as stipulated, the 
panel found respondent in violation of DR 7-101(A)(3) (causing prejudice or 
damage to client during representation) as to 14 counts, 11 of which involved 
appeals of clients’ criminal appeals that were dismissed due to respondent’s 
neglect, one of which involved the appeal of a client’s delinquency adjudication 
that was dismissed for respondent’s neglect, and two of which involved clients’ 
criminal appeals for which new attorneys were appointed. 
{¶5} 
In recommending a sanction for this misconduct, the panel 
considered mitigating and aggravating factors in accordance with Section 10 of 
the Rules and Regulations Governing Complaints and Hearings Before the Board 
of Commissioners on Grievances and Discipline (“BCGD Reg.”).  The parties 
stipulated that respondent’s neglect constituted multiple offenses and a pattern of 
misconduct, BCGD Reg. 10(B)(1)(c) and (d), but also that respondent had 
expressed remorse for his misconduct, had no prior disciplinary record, and had 
cooperated fully in the disciplinary proceeding.  The parties also stipulated that 
respondent’s lack of compensation for his court appointments to be extenuating; 
however, the panel found that respondent did no work for which he should have 
been paid. 
{¶6} 
In addition, respondent testified to having tried in March 2002 to 
reduce his caseload to a more manageable level, and the parties additionally 
January Term, 2004 
3 
stipulated that he stopped taking appellate appointments in August 2001.  
Moreover, the parties agreed that in 26 of the neglected appeals, trial counsel 
failed to provide adequate “appeal notice paperwork,” which contributed to 
respondent’s neglect.  Respondent apparently also found no appealable errors in 
five of the appointment cases; however, the panel found this of little mitigating 
effect because he did not review the trial court record before making these 
assessments and did not advise his clients accordingly, withdraw as counsel, or 
dismiss the appeals.  The panel further found that respondent was eventually able 
to secure some driving privileges for one of his clients and obtain a retroactive 
order dismissing the delinquency judgment against another client. 
{¶7} 
The rest of the findings concerned respondent’s personal hardships 
during the events at issue and his subsequent diagnosis with several psychological 
disorders.  In November 1999, respondent’s wife was diagnosed with a serious 
medical condition.  Respondent has been undergoing regular treatment with a 
clinical psychologist for his own problems, which may have been exacerbated by 
his wife’s pregnancy and the possibility that their child’s health might suffer 
because of her infirmity.  Respondent has since continued his psychological 
therapy, including medication, for his various disorders.  In April 2003, he 
contacted the Ohio Lawyers Assistance Program (“OLAP”) and is also 
participating in that treatment program. 
{¶8} 
The parties jointly suggested that respondent’s license be 
suspended for one year, but that six months of this sanction be stayed on the 
conditions, in effect, that respondent (1) continue with the course of treatment 
recommended by his mental health professional and OLAP’s recommendations 
concerning his mental health, and (2) complete six hours of continuing legal 
education in the management of a law practice and ethics.  The panel rejected this 
stipulation as too lenient, in part because respondent asserted his lack of any 
selfish motive, but testified that when Butler County ran out of funds for 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO 
4 
appointed attorneys, he stopped working on his appointment cases and 
concentrated on those of paying clients.  The panel also found that respondent did 
not sufficiently establish the causal connection between his psychological 
disorders and his misconduct. 
{¶9} 
The panel recommended that respondent be suspended from the 
practice of law for two years, but that one year of this sanction be stayed on the 
conditions suggested by the parties.  The board adopted the panel’s findings of 
misconduct and recommendation. 
{¶10} In determining the appropriate sanction for attorney misconduct, 
we consider "the duties violated, the actual injury caused, the attorney’s mental 
state, the existence of aggravating or mitigating circumstances, and 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.  We agree that respondent violated DR 1-
102(A)(6), 6-101(A)(3), and 7-101(A)(3), as found by the board, and that he 
thereby compromised his duty to the legal system and acted to the serious 
detriment of his clients.  Moreover, we agree that respondent’s psychological 
disorders did not contribute to his acknowledged misconduct, and we concur in 
the board’s assessment of the other factors respondent offered in mitigation. 
{¶11} An attorney’s neglect of even one client’s affairs is untenable, and 
respondent abandoned matters entrusted by 28 clients.  In a similar case, when an 
attorney neglected four clients’ cases in multiple respects and ignored the 
disciplinary proceedings brought against him, we ordered a sanction similar to the 
one recommended today — a two-year suspension, with the second year stayed 
on the condition that the attorney completed six hours of CLE in law office 
management.  Disciplinary Counsel v. Kelley (2001), 93 Ohio St.3d 409, 755 
N.E.2d 338.  We rejected the indefinite suspension recommended at that time by 
the board because mitigating circumstances warranted a lesser sanction. 
January Term, 2004 
5 
{¶12} Here, respondent was comparatively new to the legal profession 
and practicing on his own when he committed his disciplinary infractions.  
Moreover, when charged with the misconduct, he accepted complete 
responsibility.  Respondent also took steps, including consultation with experts, to 
assure that he would not repeat the misconduct.  Moreover, for mitigating reasons 
already discussed, the board has not recommended a more onerous sanction. 
{¶13} Accordingly, we adopt the sanction recommended by the board.  
Respondent is suspended from the practice of law in Ohio for two years; however, 
the second year of this sanction is stayed on the conditions that respondent (1) 
continue to comply with his treating mental health professional’s course of 
treatment and OLAP’s recommendations concerning his mental health, and (2) 
complete six hours of continuing legal education in ethics and the management of 
a law practice.  If respondent fails to comply with these conditions, the stay of his 
suspension shall be lifted and respondent shall serve the entire two-year 
suspension period.  Costs are taxed to respondent. 
Judgment accordingly. 
 
MOYER, C.J., RESNICK, F.E. SWEENEY, PFEIFER, LUNDBERG STRATTON, 
O’CONNOR and O’DONNELL, JJ., concur. 
__________________ 
 
Jonathan E. Coughlan, Disciplinary Counsel, and Robert R. Berger, 
Assistant Disciplinary Counsel, for relator. 
 
Charles M. Conliff, for respondent. 
____________________