Title: Dayton Bar Assn. v. Graham

State: ohio

Issuer: Ohio Supreme Court

Document:

[Cite as Dayton Bar Assn. v. Graham, 96 Ohio St.3d 470, 2002-Ohio-4910.] 
 
 
DAYTON BAR ASSOCIATION v. GRAHAM. 
[Cite as Dayton Bar Assn. v. Graham, 96 Ohio St.3d 470, 2002-Ohio-4910.] 
Attorneys at law — Misconduct — One-year suspension with entire sanction 
stayed on conditions — Failing to cooperate in disciplinary process — 
Failing to communicate to a client attorney’s professional misgivings 
about pursuing the client’s employment-related claims and then not 
filing an action the client anticipated. 
(No. 2002-0699 — Submitted June 5, 2002 — Decided October 2, 2002.) 
ON CERTIFIED REPORT by the Board of Commissioners on Grievances and 
Discipline of the Supreme Court, No. 01-64. 
__________________ 
 
Per Curiam. 
{¶1} 
This case requires us to decide the sanction for an attorney who 
does not communicate to a client her professional misgivings about pursuing the 
client’s employment-related claims and then does not file an action the client 
anticipated.  The Board of Commissioners on Grievances and Discipline found 
that respondent, V. Ellen Graham of Dayton, Ohio, Attorney Registration No. 
0030454, committed this misconduct and thereby violated DR 6-101(A)(3) 
(neglect) and 7-101(A)(2) (failure to carry out a contract for professional 
services).  Considering these infractions and respondent’s failure to cooperate 
during the disciplinary process, the board recommended that respondent be 
suspended from the practice of law in Ohio for one year, with nine months of this 
sanction to be stayed on conditions.  We agree that respondent violated DR 6-
101(A)(3) and 7-101(A)(2), but we find a one-year suspension, stayed in its 
entirety, the more appropriate sanction. 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO 
2 
{¶2} 
In November 1996, Ilona Owens engaged respondent to represent 
her in various claims against her employer and the company’s vice-president.  
Prior to this engagement, Owens, in addition to some of her coworkers, had 
complained to their employer about the vice-president’s sexual harassment and 
other improper conduct, and the employer had investigated and sent Owens 
written apologies.  Unsatisfied with this resolution, Owens contacted respondent 
to explore further legal remedies. 
{¶3} 
In the succeeding months, respondent met with Owens a number of 
times and spoke with Owens over the telephone on occasion.  In time, respondent 
advised Owens’s employer of her representation and offered a settlement demand 
of $1 million.  When respondent received no response, she filed suit in May 1997 
against the corporate employer and the vice-president, in his individual capacity, 
for sexual harassment, negligent failure to provide a safe workplace, and infliction 
of emotional distress. 
{¶4} 
Respondent’s opposing counsel moved to dismiss the action on the 
grounds that Owens’s remedies were limited to arbitration procedures under a 
collective-bargaining agreement.  The motion to dismiss was granted as to the 
employer company, and respondent approved as to form a dismissal entry that 
also allowed Owens to pursue a grievance to arbitration and to continue her cause 
against the vice-president within 21 days by the filing of an amended complaint. 
{¶5} 
Respondent did not appeal the judgment of dismissal, nor did she 
file the amended complaint against the vice-president.  Respondent did not file the 
appeal because she was convinced through research that Owens was obligated to 
pursue arbitration and that this process would likely resolve the matter to Owens’s 
satisfaction.  Respondent did not file the amended complaint because she thought 
that it would be difficult to collect any damages from the vice-president and that 
Owens was not really interested in pursuing him as a defendant.  Respondent 
explained her professional misgivings about the appeal to Owens; however, she 
January Term, 2002 
3 
failed to explain to Owens her opinion on the futility of legal action against the 
vice-president and to tell Owens that she did not intend to file the amended 
complaint.  Thereafter, the statute of limitations for Owens’s action elapsed. 
{¶6} 
Owens later pursued on her own other actions against her employer 
based on charges of retaliation, failure to accommodate a disability, and unfair 
labor practices.  And with the help of her union, she settled a grievance stemming 
from her eventual discharge.  She also filed a grievance concerning respondent’s 
representation with relator, Dayton Bar Association. 
{¶7} 
Relator investigated the grievance and, on June 11, 2001, initiated 
proceedings claiming that respondent had violated the Code of Professional 
Responsibility.  A panel of the board heard the cause and found the facts as stated.  
While respondent claimed that she had explained to Owens her reasons for not 
filing an amended complaint against the vice-president, the panel credited Owens, 
who testified that respondent had not explained them to her.  The panel found that 
respondent had thereby violated DR 6-101(A)(3) and 7-101(A)(2). 
{¶8} 
After considering evidence that respondent had complied with 
relator’s requests for discovery, but not in a timely manner, the panel further 
found, as an aggravating factor, that respondent had not cooperated in the 
disciplinary process.  In mitigation, the panel found that respondent had no prior 
disciplinary record, had not taken fees from Owens or acted with dishonesty or a 
selfish motive, and had expressed remorse for her misconduct.  See Section 10 of 
the Rules and Regulations Governing Procedure on Complaints and Hearings 
Before the Board of Commissioners on Grievances and Discipline.  The panel 
recommended that respondent be suspended from the practice of law for one year, 
but that nine months of this sanction be stayed on the conditions that she have no 
further disciplinary actions brought against her and remain current with 
continuing legal education requirements.  The board adopted the panel’s findings 
and recommendation. 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO 
4 
{¶9} 
We agree with the board’s findings of misconduct and 
recommendation, but with some modification.  In the past, an attorney’s “lack of a 
prior disciplinary record, absence of a dishonest or selfish motive related to his 
neglect, relatively isolated nature of his neglect, eventual cooperation in the 
disciplinary proceedings, and remorse” have persuaded us to stay the entire 
suspension for an attorney’s failure to adequately represent a single client.  
Disciplinary Counsel v. Boulger (2000), 88 Ohio St.3d 325, 327, 725 N.E.2d 
1112.  As this case presents the same mitigating factors, we will also stay the 
recommended suspension here in its entirety.  Respondent is therefore suspended 
from the practice of law in Ohio for one year, but this sanction is stayed on the 
conditions that she have no further disciplinary actions brought against her and 
remain current with continuing legal education requirements.  Costs are taxed to 
respondent. 
 
 
Judgment accordingly. 
 
DOUGLAS, RESNICK, F.E. SWEENEY and PFEIFER, JJ., concur. 
 
MOYER, C.J., dissents and would suspend respondent for one year without 
stay. 
 
COOK and LUNDBERG STRATTON, JJ., dissent. 
__________________ 
 
Cook, J., dissenting. 
{¶10} This case features conduct and mitigating circumstances that are 
similar to those that were present in Disciplinary Counsel v. Boulger (2000), 88 
Ohio St.3d 325, 725 N.E.2d 1112.  I would therefore impose the same sanction as 
this court imposed in Boulger — a six-month suspension stayed in its entirety. 
 
 
LUNDBERG STRATTON, J., concurs in the foregoing dissenting opinion. 
__________________ 
January Term, 2002 
5 
 
Diane L. Gentile and John F. Kolberg, for relator. 
 
V. Ellen Graham, pro se. 
__________________