Title: Columbus Bar Assn. v. Roy

State: ohio

Issuer: Ohio Supreme Court

Document:

[Cite as Columbus Bar Assn. v. Roy, Slip Opinion No. 2015-Ohio-1190, 2015-Ohio-1190.] 
 
 
 
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. 2015-OHIO-1190 
COLUMBUS BAR ASSOCIATION v. ROY. 
[Until this opinion appears in the Ohio Official Reports advance sheets, it 
may be cited as Columbus Bar Assn. v. Roy, Slip Opinion No. 2015-Ohio-
1190.] 
Attorneys—Misconduct—Failure to inform client of lack of professional liability 
insurance and failure to obtain written acknowledgment—Public 
reprimand. 
(No. 2014-1381—Submitted January 14, 2015—Decided April 1, 2015.) 
ON CERTIFIED REPORT by the Board of Commissioners on Grievances and 
Discipline of the Supreme Court, No. 2013-045. 
_______________________ 
Per Curiam. 
{¶ 1} Respondent, Cynthia Marie Roy of Columbus, Ohio, Attorney 
Registration No. 0022830, was admitted to the practice of law in Ohio in 1982.  
On August 2, 2013, a probable-cause panel of the Board of Commissioners on 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO 
2 
 
Grievances and Discipline1 certified to the board a four-count complaint filed 
against Roy by relator, Columbus Bar Association.  In that complaint, relator 
alleged that Roy had committed multiple violations of the Rules of Professional 
Conduct in handling a single client’s domestic-relations matter. 
{¶ 2} After a hearing at which Roy, her former client, and counsel for the 
opposing party in the underlying litigation testified, the panel unanimously 
dismissed all of the alleged violations in Counts One, Three, and Four, and two of 
the three alleged violations in Count Two of relator’s complaint.  See Gov.Bar R. 
V(6)(G). The only remaining alleged violation was that Roy failed to inform her 
client that she did not maintain professional liability insurance in violation of 
Prof.Cond.R. 1.4(c) (requiring a lawyer to inform the client if the lawyer does not 
maintain professional liability insurance and obtain a signed acknowledgment of 
that notice from the client).  The panel found that Roy violated that rule and 
recommended that she be publicly reprimanded. 
{¶ 3} The board adopted the panel’s report in its entirety.  We adopt the 
board’s findings of fact and conclusions of law and publicly reprimand Roy for 
her misconduct. 
Misconduct 
{¶ 4} In August 2009, Cynthia Murray retained Roy to represent her in her 
pending divorce.  In May 2012, more than two years after Murray’s divorce was 
final, Murray filed a grievance with relator alleging that Roy had failed to resolve 
several issues with respect to her divorce proceeding.  During the investigation, 
relator determined that Roy did not carry professional liability insurance while 
she represented Murray and that she had not given Murray the notice required by 
Prof.Cond.R. 1.4(c). At the hearing, Roy admitted both her lack of insurance 
                                                 
1 Effective January 1, 2015, the Board of Commissioners on Grievances and Discipline has been 
renamed the Board of Professional Conduct.  See Gov.Bar R. V(1)(A), 140 Ohio St.3d CII. 
 
January Term, 2015 
 
3
during her representation of Murray and her failure to inform Murray of that fact.  
The board found that Roy’s failure to inform Murray of this lack of coverage, 
either at the time of her engagement or at any time thereafter, violated 
Prof.Cond.R. 1.4(c).  We adopt these findings of fact and misconduct. 
Sanction 
{¶ 5} When imposing sanctions for attorney misconduct, we consider 
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 
formerly listed in BCGD Proc.Reg. 10(B).2  Disciplinary Counsel v. Broeren, 115 
Ohio St.3d 473, 2007-Ohio-5251, 875 N.E.2d 935, ¶ 21.   
{¶ 6} The board found that none of the aggravating factors listed in BCGD 
Proc.Reg. 10(B)(1) apply. Mitigating factors present include the absence of a 
prior disciplinary record, the absence of a dishonest or selfish motive, Roy’s full 
and free disclosure to the board and cooperative attitude toward the disciplinary 
proceedings, her good character or reputation apart from the charged misconduct, 
and other interim rehabilitation as demonstrated by her procurement of 
professional liability insurance.  See BCGD Proc.Reg. 10(B)(2)(a), (b), (d), (e), 
and (h). 
{¶ 7} On these facts, the board recommends that we publicly reprimand 
Roy for failing to notify her client that she did not carry professional liability 
insurance during the client’s representation.  In support of that sanction, the board 
notes that we have imposed that same sanction for an attorney with a prior 
disciplinary record who failed to give written notice to two clients that she did not 
                                                 
2 Effective January 1, 2015, the aggravating and mitigating factors previously set forth in BCGD 
Proc.Reg. 10(B) are codified in Gov.Bar R. V(13), 140 Ohio St.3d CXXIV. 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO 
4 
 
maintain professional liability insurance.  See Akron Bar Assn. v. DeLoach, 133 
Ohio St.3d 329, 2012-Ohio-4629, 978 N.E.2d 181. 
{¶ 8} Having considered Roy’s misconduct, the mitigating factors present, 
the absence of aggravating factors, and the sanctions we have imposed for 
comparable misconduct, we agree that a public reprimand is the appropriate 
sanction in this case.   Accordingly, Cynthia Marie Roy is publicly reprimanded 
for her failure to comply with Prof.Cond.R. 1.4(c).  Costs are taxed to Roy. 
Judgment accordingly. 
O’CONNOR, C.J., and PFEIFER, O’DONNELL, LANZINGER, KENNEDY, 
FRENCH, and O’NEILL, JJ., concur. 
_________________________ 
 
Bruce A. Campbell, Bar Counsel, and A. Alysha Clous, Assistant Bar 
Counsel; Jon M. Cope; Tyack, Blackmore, Liston & Nigh Co., L.P.A., and 
Margaret L. Blackmore, for relator. 
Alvin E. Mathews Jr., for respondent. 
_________________________