Title: Toledo Bar Assn. v. DiLabbio

State: ohio

Issuer: Ohio Supreme Court

Document:

[Cite as Toledo Bar Assn. v. DiLabbio, 101 Ohio St.3d 147, 2004-Ohio-338.] 
 
 
TOLEDO BAR ASSOCIATION v. DILABBIO. 
[Cite as Toledo Bar Assn. v. DiLabbio, 101 Ohio St.3d 147, 2004-Ohio-338.] 
Attorneys at law — Misconduct — Six-month suspension with sanction stayed on 
conditions — Neglect of an entrusted legal matter — Failing to promptly 
return funds client is entitled to receive — Failing to cooperate in 
disciplinary investigation. 
(No. 2003-1195 — Submitted August 26, 2003 — Decided February 11, 2004.) 
ON CERTIFIED REPORT by the Board of Commissioners on Grievances and 
Discipline of the Supreme Court, No. 02-84. 
________________________ 
 
Per Curiam. 
{¶1} 
Respondent, Larry DiLabbio of Toledo, 
Ohio, Attorney 
Registration No. 0021890, was admitted to the practice of law in Ohio in 1984.  
On December 9, 2002, relator, Toledo Bar Association, charged respondent with 
various violations of the Code of Professional Responsibility.  A panel of the 
Board of Commissioners on Grievances and Discipline heard the cause and made 
findings of fact, conclusions of law, and a recommendation. 
{¶2} 
As to the first count of misconduct, a client retained respondent in 
1998 to seek modification of a child-support agreement.  Respondent advised the 
client that he would charge $100 per hour for his services, that he expected to 
spend “a minimum of three and a half to four plus hours” on the case, and that the 
filing fee would be $150.  Respondent and the client did not commit their 
agreement to writing; however, the client advanced $500 toward respondent’s 
attorney fees and paid the anticipated $150 filing fee.  Respondent deposited these 
payments in his office operating account instead of a client trust account. 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO 
2 
{¶3} 
Respondent spent one hour in conference with the client, one hour 
reviewing the documented events that had already occurred in the case, and one-
half hour preparing the motion to modify child support.  Respondent completed 
the motion but did not file it because the client’s ex-husband was incarcerated at 
the time and his client agreed to delay the filing until the ex-husband’s release.  
Respondent nevertheless continued during 1999 to work on the case by 
communicating on numerous occasions with the client and her ex-husband. 
{¶4} 
In 2000, the client’s husband was released from prison.  The client 
telephoned repeatedly to ask respondent to file the motion to modify, but she had 
little success.  In the meantime, the client’s ex-husband left the state, and the 
client decided that respondent’s services were no longer needed.  Although 
respondent never filed the motion to modify, he did not refund any of the client’s 
money upon request, believing that he had earned all $650. 
{¶5} 
The panel found that respondent had violated DR 6-101(A)(3) 
(neglecting an entrusted legal matter) because he did not return his client’s 
telephone calls or file the motion to modify expeditiously in accordance with her 
wishes.  In addition, the panel found that although respondent earned all but the 
$150 unused filing fee, he had violated 9-102(B)(4) (failing to promptly return 
funds client is entitled to receive) by not repaying the $150 to the client.  The 
panel also noted that it had no authority to consider respondent’s apparent 
violation of DR 9-102(A) (failing to deposit client’s funds in an identifiable bank 
account) because relator did not charge this in the complaint. 
{¶6} 
As to the second count of misconduct, the panel found that 
although respondent participated fully in the hearing, he had violated Gov.Bar R. 
V(4)(G) because, as stipulated by the parties, he did not initially respond to 
relator’s efforts to investigate the grievance submitted by his client. 
{¶7} 
As to a third count of misconduct, a client retained respondent to 
represent her in a personal-injury claim stemming from a 1996 auto accident.  
January Term, 2004 
3 
Respondent did not file a complaint in the action, and the cause was lost to the 
statute of limitations.  Respondent, whose malpractice insurance had lapsed, 
settled the client’s claim for malpractice for $10,000 and paid it out of his 
personal funds. 
{¶8} 
Similarly, as to a fourth count of misconduct, two clients retained 
respondent to represent them in claims arising from another 1996 auto accident.  
While assisting these clients in other matters, respondent forgot about their 
personal-injury claims and failed to timely file a complaint on their behalf.  The 
clients sued respondent for malpractice, obtaining judgments against him for 
$35,000 and $25,000.  Respondent also did not have malpractice insurance to 
cover these judgments, and both remain unsatisfied. 
{¶9} 
The panel found that respondent violated DR 6-101(A)(3) in 
connection with the third and fourth counts of the complaint. 
{¶10} In recommending a sanction for this misconduct, the panel 
reviewed the mitigating and aggravating factors listed in Section 10 of the Rules 
and Regulations Governing Procedure on Complaints and Hearings Before the 
Board of Commissioners on Grievances and Discipline (“BCGD Reg. Section 
10”).  The panel found that respondent had engaged in a pattern of misconduct but 
that he did so while nearly consumed with defending a juvenile client against an 
aggravated murder charge containing death-penalty specifications.  As mitigating 
features, the panel found that respondent has no prior record of disciplinary 
sanctions, did not act out of self-interest, and had already made restitution in one 
case despite his own financial distress.  Respondent also ultimately cooperated 
with the disciplinary process, was forthcoming during the proceedings, and 
submitted letters from a Lucas County Common Pleas Court judge and area 
attorneys demonstrating that he was considered a respected and competent 
member of his local bar.  The panel additionally found that while respondent’s 
medical condition did not rise to the level of a mental disability as described in 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO 
4 
BCGD Reg. Section 10, he had been treated for a depressive disorder 
intermittently during the events at issue, sought treatment for his condition, and 
worked to overcome it. 
{¶11} Relator declined to suggest a sanction for respondent’s 
misconduct; respondent proposed a public reprimand.  The panel recommended 
that respondent be suspended from the practice of law for six months, with the 
entire period to be stayed on the following conditions: (1) that respondent engage 
in no further misconduct during the six-month period; (2) that he continue to treat 
his depression; (3) that he cooperate with an attorney appointed by relator to 
monitor respondent’s probationary compliance, including conscientious client 
representation and notice as required by DR 1-104 (disclosure to client of 
attorney’s having low or no malpractice insurance coverage); and (4) that in 
addition to standard continuing-legal-educational requirements (“CLE”), 
respondent take ten CLE hours in practice management.  The board adopted the 
panel’s findings of misconduct and recommendation. 
{¶12} We agree that respondent violated DR 6-101(A)(3) and 9-
102(B)(4) and Gov.Bar R. V(4)(G) as found by the board.  We also agree that a 
six-month suspension, stayed on conditions, is a commensurate sanction, 
considering the mitigating factors, including one not mentioned by the panel and 
board—that respondent regretted and accepted responsibility for his misconduct.  
See Columbus Bar Assn. v. Ginther, 98 Ohio St.3d 345, 2003-Ohio-1010, 785 
N.E.2d 432, in which we conditionally stayed the six-month suspension of an 
attorney who did not file objections and a brief to a client’s detriment, and did not 
withdraw upon discharge, but who also supplied mitigating evidence of his 
depression and alcohol problems, lack of a prior disciplinary record, cooperation 
in the disciplinary process, character references, and attempts to account to his 
client. 
January Term, 2004 
5 
{¶13} Accordingly, respondent is hereby suspended from the practice of 
law in Ohio for six months, but this sanction is stayed on the conditions (1) that 
respondent engage in no further misconduct during the six-month period; (2) that 
he continue to receive treatment for his depression; (3) that he cooperate with an 
attorney appointed by relator to monitor respondent’s probationary compliance, 
including conscientious client representation and notice as required by DR 1-104; 
and (4) that in addition to standard CLE requirements, respondent take ten CLE 
hours in practice management.  If respondent fails to meet these conditions, the 
stay of his suspension shall be lifted and respondent shall serve six months of 
actual suspension from the practice of law.  Costs are taxed to respondent. 
Judgment accordingly. 
 
MOYER, C.J., RESNICK, F.E. SWEENEY, PFEIFER, LUNDBERG STRATTON, 
O’CONNOR and O’DONNELL, JJ., concur. 
________________________ 
 
Joseph Dawson and Paul Giha, for relator. 
 
James Caruso, for respondent.