Title: Cleveland Metro. Bar Assn. v. Sherman

State: ohio

Issuer: Ohio Supreme Court

Document:

[Until this opinion appears in the Ohio Official Reports advance sheets, it may be cited as 
Cleveland Metro. Bar Assn. v. Sherman, Slip Opinion No. 2010-Ohio-2469.] 
 
 
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. 2010-OHIO-2469 
CLEVELAND METROPOLITAN BAR ASSOCIATION v. SHERMAN. 
[Until this opinion appears in the Ohio Official Reports advance sheets, it 
may be cited as Cleveland Metro. Bar Assn. v. Sherman,  
Slip Opinion No. 2010-Ohio-2469.] 
Attorneys — Failure to act with reasonable diligence to keep a client informed 
about the status of a legal matter or to inform a client that he did not 
maintain professional-liability insurance — Nine-month suspension stayed 
on condition. 
(No. 2010-0254 — Submitted February 24, 2010 — Decided June 9, 2010.) 
ON CERTIFIED REPORT by the Board of Commissioners on Grievances and 
Discipline of the Supreme Court, No. 09-066. 
__________________ 
Per Curiam. 
{¶ 1} Respondent, David C. Sherman of Westlake, Ohio, Attorney 
Registration No. 0031000, was admitted to the practice of law in Ohio in 1972.  
On August 17, 2009, relator, Cleveland Metropolitan Bar Association, charged 
respondent with multiple violations of the Rules of Professional Conduct.  A 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO 
2 
 
panel of the Board of Commissioners on Grievance and Discipline considered the 
cause on the parties’ consent-to-discipline agreement.  See Section 11 of the 
Rules and Regulations Governing Procedure on Complaints and hearings Before 
the Board of Commissioners on Grievances and Discipline (“BCGD Proc.Reg.”). 
{¶ 2} The Board of Commissioners on Grievances and Discipline 
adopted the agreement of the parties, including the stipulated facts, violations, and 
sanction.  Based upon findings that respondent violated Prof.Cond.R. 1.2(a), 1.3, 
1.4(A)(3), and 1.4(c), the board recommends that we impose a nine-month 
suspension, all stayed.  We accept the findings that respondent violated the ethical 
standards incumbent on Ohio lawyers and agree that a nine-month suspension, all 
stayed, is appropriate. 
Misconduct 
{¶ 3} The stipulated facts of this case show that in January 2007, 
respondent agreed to represent a client in a personal-injury matter arising from a 
February 2005 automobile accident.  Respondent filed a complaint on the client’s 
behalf in January 2007.  With the court’s permission, he did not appear at a case-
management conference because he was recovering from surgery.  In November 
2007, believing that it was in his client’s best interest, respondent voluntarily 
dismissed the client’s case.  But he did so without notifying the client or obtaining 
her consent. 
{¶ 4} The 
parties 
stipulate 
that 
respondent’s 
conduct 
violated 
Prof.Cond.R. 1.2(a) (requiring a lawyer to abide by the client’s decisions 
concerning the objectives of representation and to consult with the client as to 
means by which they are to be pursued), 1.3 (requiring a lawyer to act with 
reasonable diligence in representing a client), and 1.4(a)(3) (requiring a lawyer to 
keep the client reasonably informed about the status of a matter). 
{¶ 5} Additionally, in May 2007, respondent mistakenly failed to inform 
a second client that he did not maintain professional-liability insurance.  The 
January Term, 2010 
3 
 
parties stipulate that respondent’s conduct in this matter violates Prof.Cond.R. 
1.4(c) (requiring a lawyer to inform the client if the lawyer does not maintain 
professional-liability insurance). 
Sanction 
{¶ 6} In accepting the stipulated sanction, the panel and board 
considered the aggravating and mitigating factors listed in BCGD Proc.Reg. 10.  
Consistent with the parties’ stipulations, the panel found the following mitigating 
factors: (1) respondent has no prior disciplinary record, (2) respondent has not 
acted with a dishonest or selfish motive, (3) respondent provided full and free 
disclosure during relator’s investigation and has displayed a cooperative attitude 
toward the disciplinary proceedings, (4) during the relevant time period, 
respondent was temporarily disabled as a result of two major surgeries.  BCGD 
Proc. Reg. 10(B)(2)(a), (b), and (d).  There was no evidence of any aggravating 
factors.  See BCGD Proc.Reg. 10(B)(1). 
{¶ 7} Both the panel and the board accepted the parties’ consent-to-
discipline agreement, including the finding of misconduct and recommended 
sanction.  We accept the findings of misconduct and agree that a nine-month 
suspension, all stayed, is the appropriate sanction. 
{¶ 8} The recommended sanction is consistent with sanctions imposed in 
other cases.  In Cuyahoga Cty. Bar Assn. v. Drain, 120 Ohio St.3d 288, 2008-
Ohio-6141, 898 N.E.2d 580, we imposed a six-month stayed suspension for a 
lawyer who neglected a client’s case, failed to inform the client that he had 
dismissed and refiled her case, and failed to inform the client that he had canceled 
his malpractice insurance.  We also imposed a six-month stayed suspension for a 
lawyer who violated Prof.Cond.R. 1.3, 1.4(a)(1), 1.4(a)(3), and 3.3(a)(1) by 
failing to seek a client’s informed consent before dismissing her case without 
prejudice, failing to timely inform the client of the dismissal, and filing a 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO 
4 
 
misleading document with a court.  Cleveland Metro. Bar Assn. v. Thomas, 125 
Ohio St.3d 24, 2010-Ohio-1031, 975 N.E.2d 959. 
{¶ 9} Based upon the foregoing, we accept the consent-to-discipline 
agreement.  Accordingly, respondent is hereby suspended from the practice of law 
in Ohio for nine months, all stayed on the condition that respondent commit no 
further misconduct.  If respondent fails to comply with the terms of the stay, the 
stay will be lifted, and respondent will serve the full nine-month suspension.  
Costs are taxed to respondent. 
Judgment accordingly. 
 
PFEIFER, LUNDBERG STRATTON, O’CONNOR, O’DONNELL, LANZINGER, and 
CUPP, JJ., concur. 
 
BROWN, C.J., not participating. 
__________________ 
Ulmer & Berne, L.L.P., Melissa L. Zujkowski, and Erika Imre Schindler, 
for relator. 
David C. Sherman, pro se. 
______________________