Title: Dayton Bar Assn. v. Stephan

State: ohio

Issuer: Ohio Supreme Court

Document:

[Cite as Dayton Bar Assn. v. Stephan, 108 Ohio St.3d 327, 2006-Ohio-1063.] 
 
 
 
DAYTON BAR ASSOCIATION v. STEPHAN. 
[Cite as Dayton Bar Assn. v. Stephan, 
108 Ohio St.3d 327, 2006-Ohio-1063.] 
Attorneys at law — Misconduct — Two-year suspension, with entire suspension 
stayed on conditions — Neglecting entrusted legal matter — Handling a 
legal matter without adequate preparation — Engaging in conduct 
adversely reflecting on attorney’s fitness to practice law. 
(No. 2005-1159 — Submitted October 25, 2005 — Decided 
March 22, 2006.) 
ON CERTIFIED REPORT by the Board of Commissioners on Grievances and 
Discipline of the Supreme Court, No. 04-087. 
__________________ 
PFEIFER, J. 
{¶ 1} On December 6, 2004, relator, the Dayton Bar Association, filed a 
complaint against respondent, Wayne Stephan, Attorney Registration No. 
0023577, charging him with Disciplinary Rule violations related to his 
representation of a client.  Stephan failed to answer the complaint.  Relator filed a 
motion for default judgment and recommended that Stephan be suspended from 
the practice of law for one year.  Stephan did not respond to the motion for default 
judgment. 
{¶ 2} A master commissioner appointed by the Board of Commissioners 
on Grievances and Discipline of the Supreme Court granted the motion for default 
judgment, made findings of misconduct, and recommended a one-year suspension 
from the practice of law with the entire suspension stayed upon conditions.  The 
recommended conditions were (1) that Stephan submit to having his law-office-
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO 
2 
management practices monitored by relator, (2) that Stephan complete a course in 
law-office management and two hours of CLE on ethics, and (3) that Stephan pay 
the costs of the disciplinary proceedings.  The board considered the matter on 
June 9, 2005, and adopted the master commissioner’s findings of fact and 
conclusions of law.  The board recommended a six-month suspension from the 
practice of law and an order for Stephan to pay restitution to his client and the 
costs of the disciplinary proceedings. 
{¶ 3} In the summer of 2002, Rosalind Yarnall hired Stephan to 
represent her in a divorce.  Yarnall paid Stephan $1,500 for all legal services 
associated with her divorce.  On August 11, 2003, a hearing was held and a 
divorce was granted, and each party was ordered to file a qualified domestic-
relations order (“QDRO”).  A QDRO is an order that “ ‘creates or recognizes the 
right or rights of a spouse, former spouse, child, or other dependent to receive all 
or a portion of the benefits payable from a private pension plan for the provision 
of or payment of child support, spousal support, or marital property rights due 
from the private pension plan participant.’ ”  Disciplinary Counsel v. Herman, 99 
Ohio St.3d 362, 2003-Ohio-3932, 792 N.E.2d 1078, ¶ 1, fn. 1, quoting 1 Sowald 
& Morganstern, Domestic Relations Law (2002) 408, Section 9:20.  Stephan told 
Yarnall that she needed to pay him an additional $350 for him to prepare her 
QDRO.  Yarnall paid the additional fee, even though when Stephan took the case, 
he did not tell her that a QDRO would be required or that he would charge an 
additional fee to prepare a QDRO.  In January 2004, the adverse party in the 
divorce action filed his QDRO.  Stephan failed to prepare Yarnall’s QDRO, and 
in May 2004, the judge issued a show cause order in response to a motion asking 
the court to find Yarnall in contempt for failing to file her QDRO.  After Stephan 
failed to contact her, Yarnall hired substitute counsel, who prepared and filed her 
QDRO.  The board concluded that Stephan had violated DR 1-102(A)(6) (barring 
January Term, 2006 
3 
an attorney from engaging in conduct adversely reflecting on his fitness to practice 
law) by failing to complete the legal work he had been engaged to perform, by 
failing to communicate with Yarnall, and by accepting a $350 check from Yarnall 
to prepare and file a QDRO and then neither preparing the QDRO nor returning 
the check.  The board additionally found that Stephan had violated DR 6-
101(A)(2) (barring an attorney from handling a legal matter without adequate 
preparation) and 6-101(A)(3) (barring an attorney from neglecting an entrusted 
legal matter) by failing to complete the legal work he was retained to do and by 
failing to communicate with his client. 
{¶ 4} In mitigation, the board found that Stephan has no prior record of a 
Disciplinary Rule violation and mentioned that relator had determined that there 
was no dishonest or selfish motive on the part of Stephan and that Stephan has a 
good character and reputation.  Stephan offered neither a defense nor mitigating 
evidence until the cause reached this court and we issued an order to show cause 
why the recommendation of the board should not be confirmed.  In response, 
Stephan filed objections and a brief and moved this court to remand the cause to 
the board and grant him leave to file an answer and submit evidence.  In the 
alternative, he moved to supplement the record before this court, and he attached 
an affidavit to his motion for that purpose. 
{¶ 5} We deny Stephan’s motions.  We have previously held that 
attorneys have an obligation to assist in disciplinary matters and that the record 
should be developed in the answers and hearings prior to reaching this court.  See 
Cleveland Bar Assn. v. Witt (1999), 85 Ohio St.3d 9, 11, 706 N.E.2d 763 (the 
respondent’s affidavit filed with this court was not considered, because “[o]nly 
after we issued an order to show cause did respondent awake to the consequences 
of his inaction and make a belated attempt to excuse and justify his failure to 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO 
4 
cooperate”).  We will consider supplements to the record only under the most 
exceptional circumstances.  We find no such circumstances in this case. 
{¶ 6} Relator recommends that Stephan be suspended from the practice 
of law for at least one year.  The master commissioner recommended to the board 
that Stephan be suspended from the practice of law for one year with the entire 
suspension stayed on conditions. The board recommends that Stephan be 
suspended from the practice of law for six months and be ordered to pay 
restitution to his client and the costs of the disciplinary proceedings. 
{¶ 7} We conclude that Stephan violated DR 1-102(A)(6), 6-101(A)(2), 
and 6-101(A)(3).  Stephan was not adequately prepared to handle a legal matter he 
accepted, he did not complete the matter for his client, and his client suffered 
harm as a result.  We acknowledge relator’s assertion that Stephan has a good 
reputation and that he did not act with dishonest or selfish motives.  We also note 
that he has no prior record of Disciplinary Rule violations.  In Columbus Bar 
Assn. v. Micciulla, 106 Ohio St.3d 19, 2005-Ohio-3470, 830 N.E.2d 332, we 
determined that a suspension stayed on conditions is an appropriate sanction in a 
case involving neglect of a client’s legal matter when the attorney has no prior 
disciplinary record and no dishonest or selfish motive.  We conclude that a 
suspension stayed on conditions is appropriate in this case as well. 
{¶ 8} We hereby suspend Stephan from the practice of law in Ohio for 
two years and stay the suspension on the conditions that Stephan (1) submit to and 
cooperate with a monitoring attorney appointed by relator, who will meet with 
Stephan monthly and offer counsel concerning Stephan’s law-office management, 
his relations and communication techniques with clients and relator, and other 
issues that arise in his law practice, (2) complete a course in law-office 
management and two hours of CLE on ethics during the stayed suspension period, 
submitting evidence of compliance to the monitor, (3) reimburse Yarnall for all 
January Term, 2006 
5 
attorney fees and out-of-pocket expenses incurred as a result of her obtaining 
substitute counsel, and (4) pay the costs of these proceedings.  Should Stephan 
violate the conditions of the stay, the stay will be lifted, and Stephan will be 
suspended from the practice of law in Ohio for two years.  Costs are taxed to 
respondent. 
Judgment accordingly. 
 
RESNICK, LUNDBERG STRATTON and LANZINGER, JJ., concur. 
 
MOYER, C.J., O’CONNOR and O’DONNELL, JJ., dissent. 
__________________ 
 
MOYER, C.J., dissenting. 
{¶ 9} I respectfully dissent from the majority opinion with respect to the 
sanction imposed on respondent.  In this case, the respondent neglected an 
entrusted legal matter for which he had accepted a check for $350.  As a result, his 
client was put at risk of being held in contempt of court.  Respondent has not 
returned the check to his client, even though she ultimately hired substitute 
counsel to complete the work respondent had agreed to do.  Moreover, respondent 
neglected to appropriately respond to these disciplinary proceedings. He did not 
timely proffer any evidence to explain his failure to attend to these important 
responsibilities. 
{¶ 10} The facts in prior cases in which this court imposed a fully stayed 
suspension are distinguishable.  For example, in Columbus Bar Assn. v. Micciulla, 
106 Ohio St.3d 19, 2005-Ohio-3470, 830 N.E.2d 332, cited by the majority, the 
disciplined attorney proffered evidence of mitigation, including the discovery of 
previously undiagnosed medical conditions that had contributed to his 
procrastination.  In addition, the attorney demonstrated a history of pro bono 
service to the poor and to battered women. 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO 
6 
{¶ 11} In my view, and in accord with the recommendation of the Board 
of Commissioners on Grievances and Discipline, the court should impose an 
actual suspension.  I would impose an 18-month suspension with 12 months 
stayed on the same conditions adopted by the majority, resulting in an actual 
suspension of six months. 
 
O’DONNELL, J., concurs in the foregoing dissenting opinion. 
__________________ 
 
O’CONNOR, J., dissenting. 
{¶ 12} I respectfully dissent and would suspend respondent for 18 months 
and stay the last 12 months of the suspension provided that he meet all of the 
conditions imposed by the majority. 
{¶ 13} I would impose an actual suspension due to respondent’s failure to 
cooperate with the Dayton Bar Association by answering the complaint in a timely 
manner and by failing to respond to the motion for a default judgment. 
__________________ 
 
Leppla Associates and Gary J. Leppla, for respondent. 
Popp & Tuss and Mark A. Tuss, for relator. 
______________________