Title: Medina Cty. Bar Assn. v. Malynn

State: ohio

Issuer: Ohio Supreme Court

Document:

[Until this opinion appears in the Ohio Official Reports advance sheets, it may be cited as 
Medina Cty. Bar Assn. v. Malynn, Slip Opinion No. 2014-Ohio-5261.] 
 
 
 
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. 2014-OHIO-5261 
MEDINA COUNTY BAR ASSOCIATION v. MALYNN. 
[Until this opinion appears in the Ohio Official Reports advance sheets, it 
may be cited as Medina Cty. Bar Assn. v. Malynn, 
Slip Opinion No. 2014-Ohio-5261.] 
Attorneys at law—Misconduct—Violations of the Rules of Professional Conduct, 
including failing to provide competent representation to a client, failing to 
keep a client reasonably informed about the status of a matter, and failing 
to advise a client in writing that the client may be entitled to refund of a 
fee denominated as “nonrefundable” if the lawyer does not complete 
representation—Indefinite suspension. 
(No. 2014-0543—Submitted May 28, 2014—Decided December 4, 2014.) 
ON CERTIFIED REPORT by the Board of Commissioners on Grievances and 
Discipline of the Supreme Court, No. 2013-020. 
_______________________ 
Per Curiam. 
{¶ 1} Respondent, Steven Reynolds Malynn of Medina, Ohio, Attorney 
Registration No. 0067339, was admitted to the practice of law in Ohio in 1996.  In 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO 
2 
 
November 2011, we suspended Malynn’s license for failing to register.  In re 
Attorney Registration Suspension of Malynn, 130 Ohio St.3d 1420, 2011-Ohio-
5627, 956 N.E.2d 310.  In March 2012, we suspended him for two years, with the 
final six months stayed, for neglecting multiple client matters, failing to preserve 
the identity of client funds, failing to cooperate in the disciplinary process, and 
engaging in conduct involving dishonesty, fraud, deceit, or misrepresentation.  
Medina Cty. Bar Assn. v. Malynn, 131 Ohio St.3d 377, 2012-Ohio-1293, 965 
N.E.2d 299.  As conditions for reinstatement, we mandated that Malynn (1) 
submit evidence showing that he had completed a mental-health evaluation and 
followed all resulting treatment recommendations and (2) provide proof to a 
reasonable degree of medical certainty that he is competent to return to the 
ethical, professional practice of law.  Id. at ¶ 19.  Although Malynn’s term 
suspension has expired, he has not applied for reinstatement.  Therefore, both his 
term suspension and his attorney-registration suspension remain in effect. 
{¶ 2} In the present case, relator, Medina County Bar Association, 
charged Malynn with professional misconduct for neglecting a client matter 
during the time period prior to his attorney-registration and term suspensions.  
The parties entered into a comprehensive list of stipulated facts and rule 
violations, and they jointly recommended that Malynn serve an indefinite 
suspension, with the suspension to run concurrently with Malynn’s term 
suspension.  In addition, the parties recommended that as a condition for 
reinstatement, Malynn provide satisfactory evidence from a board-certified 
mental-health physician that he is able to return to the practice of law.  The three-
member panel appointed to hear the matter granted the parties’ joint request to 
waive a formal hearing, adopted the parties’ stipulations, and concurred in the 
recommended sanction.  The Board of Commissioners on Grievances and 
Discipline issued a report adopting the panel’s findings of fact and misconduct 
and the recommended sanction of an indefinite suspension with a condition on 
January Term, 2014 
 
3
reinstatement.  However, the board rejected the panel’s determination that Malynn 
serve the indefinite suspension concurrently with his term suspension, and instead 
the board recommends that we impose an indefinite suspension effective on the 
date of this order.  Neither party has objected to the board’s report and 
recommendation. 
{¶ 3} Upon our review of the record, we adopt the board’s findings of 
fact and misconduct and agree that the board’s recommended sanction is 
appropriate in this case. 
Misconduct 
{¶ 4} According to the parties’ stipulations, in June 2008, Lonnie and 
Karen Hill retained Malynn to file a breach-of-contract suit against their former 
business partners.  In a written fee agreement, Lonnie Hill agreed to pay Malynn a 
$4,000 “nonrefundable retainer.”  Contrary to the provision in Prof.Cond.R. 
1.5(d)(3) regarding “nonrefundable” fees, the fee agreement did not also advise 
the Hills that if Malynn did not complete his representation, they might be entitled 
to a refund of all or part of that retainer.  In October 2008, Malynn filed a 
complaint on behalf of the Hills, but over the next 18 months, he completely 
neglected the matter.  Specifically, he failed to respond to discovery requests, 
failed to comply with court orders, and failed to oppose the defendants’ various 
motions, including dispositive motions and a motion for sanctions.  As a result, in 
March 2010, the trial court sanctioned the Hills by dismissing their complaint 
without prejudice.  Malynn did not send the Hills copies of any motions or orders 
filed in the case, and he did not inform them of his failure to prosecute the matter. 
{¶ 5} In March 2011, a year after the dismissal, Malynn refiled an 
identical complaint on behalf of the Hills.  But again, Malynn failed to respond to 
the defendants’ discovery requests and a subsequent motion for sanctions.  In 
August 2011, the trial court dismissed the Hills’ case with prejudice, finding that 
the failure to comply with the court’s discovery orders was “unmitigated, willful, 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO 
4 
 
and in bad faith.”  Again, Malynn had not sent the Hills copies of the motions and 
orders, and he failed to inform them that he had not prosecuted their case. 
{¶ 6} Based on this conduct, the parties stipulated and the board found 
that Malynn “consistently and consciously disregarded his duty to the Hills and to 
the court” and that his nonfeasance resulted in court-imposed sanctions causing 
the Hills’ breach-of-contract claims to be “forever dismissed and discharged.”  
The parties stipulated and the board found that Malynn’s conduct violated 
Prof.Cond.R. 1.1 (requiring a lawyer to provide competent representation to a 
client), 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), and 1.5(d)(3) (prohibiting a lawyer from charging a fee 
denominated as “nonrefundable” without simultaneously advising the client in 
writing that the client may be entitled to a refund of all or part of the fee if the 
lawyer does not complete the representation).  We concur in the board’s findings 
of misconduct. 
{¶ 7} In addition, the parties stipulated that Malynn failed to notify the 
Hills in a separate written notice that he did not maintain professional liability 
insurance.  Accordingly, the board found, and we agree, that Malynn violated 
Prof.Cond.R. 1.4(c) (requiring a lawyer to inform the client on a separate written 
form that the lawyer does not maintain professional liability insurance). 
Sanction 
{¶ 8} When imposing sanctions for attorney misconduct, we consider 
several 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 BCGD Proc.Reg. 10(B).  Disciplinary Counsel v. Broeren, 115 Ohio 
St.3d 473, 2007-Ohio-5251, 875 N.E.2d 935, ¶ 21.  However, because each 
January Term, 2014 
 
5
disciplinary case is unique, we are not limited to the factors specified in BCGD 
Proc.Reg. 10(B) and may take into account all relevant factors in determining 
which sanction to impose. 
Aggravating and mitigating factors 
{¶ 9} The parties stipulated, and the board found, that the following 
aggravating factors are present:  (1) prior discipline, (2) a pattern of misconduct, 
and (3) multiple offenses.  See BCGD Proc.Reg.10(B)(1)(a), (c), and (d).  We 
agree and also note that Malynn’s misconduct harmed his clients, who lost the 
ability to pursue some of their claims.  See BCGD Proc.Reg. 10(B)(1)(h).  
Another aggravating factor is that some of Malynn’s misconduct occurred while 
he was being investigated for substantially similar conduct in his previous 
disciplinary case.  The parties stipulated that at the hearing in the prior matter, 
Malynn testified that he was competent to practice law, although at that time—
June 2011—he had not timely responded to outstanding discovery requests in the 
Hills’ refiled case.  And in the two months after his prior disciplinary hearing, he 
did nothing to prevent the Hills’ case from being dismissed again. 
{¶ 10} In mitigation, the parties stipulated, and the board agreed, that 
Malynn lacked a dishonest or selfish motive, he made a good-faith effort to rectify 
the consequences of his misconduct because he eventually refunded the Hills’ 
$4,000 retainer, and he had a cooperative attitude toward the disciplinary process.  
See BCGD Proc.Reg.10(B)(2)(b), (c), and (d).  Although we concur in these 
findings, we give the fact that Malynn returned his clients’ retainer little 
mitigating value.  Malynn refunded the money four years after it had been paid 
and only after the disciplinary investigation had commenced.  See Cincinnati Bar 
Assn. v. Grote, 127 Ohio St.3d 1, 2010-Ohio-4833, 935 N.E.2d 832, ¶ 18 (giving 
the fact that an attorney refunded a retainer “little mitigating value” when the 
attorney did not return the money in a timely fashion and only after the attorney 
had been contacted by relator). 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO 
6 
 
Applicable precedent 
{¶ 11} To support its recommended sanction, the board primarily relies on 
Grote, in which we indefinitely suspended an attorney for neglecting a client 
matter and for failing to notify the client that she lacked malpractice insurance.  
The attorney in Grote also had previously been disciplined for neglecting client 
matters, she had harmed her client’s cause, and although she had returned her 
client’s retainer, the refund was not timely.  Id. at ¶ 14-18.  As we explained in 
Grote:   
 
We have indefinitely suspended attorneys for misconduct that 
demonstrates a pattern of neglect.  See Cincinnati Bar Assn. v. 
Harmon (1985), 17 Ohio St.3d 69, 17 OBR 134, 477 N.E.2d 629; 
Disciplinary Counsel v. Schiller, 123 Ohio St.3d 200, 2009-Ohio-
4909, 915 N.E.2d 324.  In Harmon, we indefinitely suspended an 
attorney for neglecting two legal matters.  The attorney in that case 
had recently been disciplined for neglecting other legal matters.  In 
Schiller, although the attorney had no prior disciplinary record, we 
indefinitely suspended him for neglecting multiple legal matters 
and failing to advise clients that he did not have professional-
liability insurance. 
 
Id. at ¶ 19.  We agree with the board that Grote supports the sanction of an 
indefinite suspension in this case. 
Conclusion 
{¶ 12} Having reviewed the record and the aggravating and mitigating 
factors, and having considered the sanctions imposed for comparable conduct, we 
adopt the board’s recommended sanction.  Accordingly, we indefinitely suspend 
Malynn from the practice of law.  His suspension is effective on the date of this 
January Term, 2014 
 
7
order.  Any future reinstatement is conditioned on the submission of proof from a 
qualified mental-health professional demonstrating that Malynn is capable of 
returning to the competent, ethical, and professional practice of law.  Costs are 
taxed to Malynn. 
Judgment accordingly. 
O’CONNOR, C.J., and PFEIFER, O’DONNELL, LANZINGER, KENNEDY, 
FRENCH, and O’NEILL, JJ., concur. 
_________________________ 
William E. Steiger II, Patricia Walker, and Daniel Maynard, for relator. 
Steven Reynolds Malynn, pro se. 
_________________________