Title: Lake Cty. Bar Assn. v. Ryan

State: ohio

Issuer: Ohio Supreme Court

Document:

[Until this opinion appears in the Ohio Official Reports advance sheets, it may be cited as 
Lake Cty. Bar Assn. v. Ryan, Slip Opinion No. 2009-Ohio-4232.] 
 
 
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. 2009-OHIO-4232 
LAKE COUNTY BAR ASSOCIATION v. RYAN. 
[Until this opinion appears in the Ohio Official Reports advance sheets, it 
may be cited as Lake Cty. Bar Assn. v. Ryan,  
Slip Opinion No. 2009-Ohio-4232.] 
Attorney misconduct — Failure to diligently pursue client’s claim — Failure to 
notify client of lack of professional-malpractice insurance — Two-year, 
partially stayed, suspension. 
(No. 2009–0393 ⎯ Submitted April 8, 2009 — Decided August 27, 2009.) 
ON CERTIFIED REPORT by the Board of Commissioners on Grievances and 
Discipline of the Supreme Court, No. 08-039. 
__________________ 
Per Curiam. 
{¶ 1} Respondent, Patrick T. Ryan of Mentor, Ohio, Attorney 
Registration No. 0022478, was admitted to the practice of law in Ohio in 1978.  
His license to practice has been suspended since May 31, 2006, when we 
suspended his license for two years, staying the second year on conditions, for 
ethical lapses including his neglect of entrusted legal matters and failure to keep 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO 
2 
 
his clients informed regarding pending legal matters.  Lake Cty. Bar Assn. v. 
Ryan, 109 Ohio St.3d 301, 2006-Ohio-2422, 847 N.E.2d 430.  Respondent did not 
fulfill the conditions for staying the second year of the suspension and has not 
applied for reinstatement.  Respondent also remains barred from practicing law 
due to his December 3, 2007 suspension for failing to comply with attorney-
registration requirements.  In re Attorney Registration Suspension of Ryan, 116 
Ohio St.3d 1420, 2007-Ohio- 6463, 877 N.E.2d 305. 
{¶ 2} The Board of Commissioners on Grievances and Discipline now 
recommends that we order another two-year suspension of respondent’s license, 
and stay the last six months of that suspension on the condition that he pay 
restitution to another aggrieved client.  The recommendation is based on the 
board’s findings that respondent failed, before his 2006 suspension, to diligently 
pursue that client’s personal-injury claim and also failed to advise her as required 
that he did not carry professional-malpractice insurance.  We accept the board’s 
findings that respondent engaged in this professional misconduct and its 
recommendation for a two-year, partially stayed, suspension. 
{¶ 3} Relator, Lake County Bar Association, charged respondent with a 
single count of misconduct, alleging numerous violations of the Disciplinary 
Rules of the former Code of Professional Responsibility.  A panel of the board 
heard the case, made findings of fact and conclusions of law, and recommended 
the two-year suspension with six months stayed.  The board adopted the panel’s 
findings of misconduct and recommendation. 
{¶ 4} The parties have not objected to the board’s report 
Misconduct 
{¶ 5} Respondent filed suit in March 2000 on behalf of a family friend 
after she suffered injuries in a March 1998 automobile accident.  He voluntarily 
dismissed the action in August 2001 to allow time for the client to complete her 
January Term, 2009 
3 
 
medical treatment.  Respondent represented his client in accordance with ethical 
standards prior to this dismissal. 
{¶ 6} Respondent’s problems developed after he refiled the personal-
injury action in September 2002.  Respondent advised his client that he needed 
expert medical reports to respond to discovery demands from the defense, but he 
did not obtain the reports in time to comply with the discovery deadlines.  The 
defense moved to compel discovery and for sanctions, and in early November 
2004, the court ordered respondent to provide the outstanding discovery within 
five days.  Respondent did not comply and decided not to appear at the final 
pretrial hearing because he still lacked the expert medical reports. 
{¶ 7} The court dismissed the personal-injury action in early December 
2004.  After the dismissal, the client provided respondent with the medical 
reports, and respondent filed a motion for reconsideration and to reinstate in an 
attempt to save the claim.  The court denied his motion in January 2005. 
{¶ 8} Respondent continued to meet with his client throughout 2005 and 
2006 and, according to him, discussed alternative recovery strategies, including 
filing a claim alleging bad faith against the defendant’s insurance carrier.  His 
client, however, testified that she did not realize that her case had been dismissed 
until late May or early June 2006.  At that time, respondent advised her that his 
law license had been suspended and urged her to consult another attorney.  When 
she did so, she learned of the dismissal when that attorney checked the court’s 
docket. 
{¶ 9} Respondent badly mismanaged his client’s case.  He also never 
advised his client that he carried no malpractice insurance.  The parties thus 
stipulated that respondent violated DR 1-104(A) (requiring a lawyer to disclose 
that the lawyer lacks professional-liability insurance), 1-102(A)(5) (prohibiting a 
lawyer from engaging in conduct that is prejudicial to the administration of 
justice), 1-102(A)(6) (prohibiting a lawyer from engaging in conduct that 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO 
4 
 
adversely reflects upon the lawyer’s fitness to practice law), 6-101(A)(2) 
(prohibiting a lawyer from representing a client without preparation adequate in 
the circumstances), 6-101(A)(3) (prohibiting a lawyer from neglecting an 
entrusted legal matter), 7-101(A)(1) (prohibiting a lawyer from intentionally 
failing to seek the lawful objectives of a client), 7-101(A)(2) (prohibiting a lawyer 
from intentionally failing to carry out a contract of professional employment), and 
7-101(A)(3) (prohibiting a lawyer from intentionally causing a client prejudice or 
damage during a professional relationship).  The board found this misconduct, 
and so do we. 
Sanction 
{¶ 10} In recommending a sanction for this misconduct, the board 
weighed the aggravating and mitigating factors of respondent’s case.  Weighing 
against respondent is his significant prior record of discipline and the fact that his 
prior misconduct and this case represent a continuing pattern of failing to 
communicate with clients and neglecting entrusted legal matters.  Also weighing 
against respondent is the harm he caused his client – she lost the opportunity to 
recover damages for her injuries and medical expenses, an amount estimated by a 
successor attorney to be between $75,000 and $150,000. 
{¶ 11} In mitigation, the board found that respondent did not act out of 
dishonesty or selfish motives.  The board further found that respondent had 
attempted to rectify the consequences of his misconduct by offering his client 
$25,000 — the amount that the defense had offered to settle her personal-injury 
case — in settlement of her malpractice claim against him.  Respondent also 
cooperated completely in the disciplinary proceedings. 
{¶ 12} The board then considered the sanctions that had been imposed in 
similar cases: 
{¶ 13} “[W]e direct our attention to Cleveland Bar Assn. v. Norton, 116 
Ohio St.3d 226, 2007-Ohio-6038, [877 N.E.2d 964].  In that case, the Respondent, 
January Term, 2009 
5 
 
Eric E. Norton, neglected two (2) client cases, failed to advise the clients that he 
lacked malpractice insurance and failed to cooperate in efforts to investigate his 
alleged misconduct.  [Norton] was suspended from the practice of law for six (6) 
months, with the entire period stayed on conditions. 
{¶ 14} “In Toledo Bar Assn. v. Hales, 120 Ohio St.3d 340, 2008-Ohio-
[6201], [899 N.E.2d 130], [Hales] mishandled and lost a medical 
malpractice/nursing home negligence case, failed to notify his insurance carrier of 
the client’s subsequent legal malpractice ease against him, which led to a denial of 
coverage, and declared Bankruptcy thus preventing the client from collecting on a 
legal malpractice judgment.  [Hales] was found in violation of DR1-102(A)(6) 
(prohibiting a lawyer from engaging in conduct which adversely reflects on the 
lawyer’s fitness to practice law), DR 6-101(A)(1) (prohibiting a lawyer from 
handling a legal matter that the lawyer knows or should know he is not competent 
to handle and without associating with a lawyer who is competent), DR 6-
101(A)(2) (prohibiting a lawyer from handling a legal matter without preparation 
adequate under the circumstances), DR 6-101(A)(3) (prohibiting a lawyer from 
neglecting an entrusted legal matter), and DR 7-101(A)(3) (prohibiting a lawyer 
from intentionally causing a client prejudice or damage during a professional 
relationship). The Supreme Court suspended the Respondent for the practice of 
law for two (2) years and ordered a stay of the last eighteen (18) months on 
conditions.” 
{¶ 15} In this case, having found the cited misconduct, weighed the 
aggravating and mitigating factors, and considered sanctions imposed in similar 
cases, the board recommended a two-year suspension from practice with the last 
six months stayed on the condition that respondent “submit to a mediation 
conducted by the Lake County Bar Association to determine the appropriate 
restitution for the client.”  We accept the recommendation. 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO 
6 
 
{¶ 16} Respondent is therefore suspended from the practice of law in 
Ohio for two years; however, the last six months of the suspension are stayed on 
the condition that he pay restitution in the amount determined through relator’s 
mediation process.  If respondent fails to comply with the condition of the stay, 
the stay will be lifted, and respondent will serve the entire two-year suspension.  
Costs are taxed to respondent.  Respondent shall also pay the cost of mediation. 
Judgment accordingly. 
 
PFEIFER, LUNDBERG STRATTON, O’DONNELL, and LANZINGER, JJ., concur. 
 
MOYER, C.J., and O’CONNOR and CUPP, JJ., dissent. 
__________________ 
MOYER, C.J., dissenting. 
{¶ 17} I respectfully dissent from the majority’s decision with respect to 
the sanction imposed on respondent.  I would impose, instead, an indefinite 
suspension from the practice of law—the sanction to which the parties previously 
stipulated, before respondent withdrew his stipulation at the disciplinary hearing. 
{¶ 18} Respondent represented the plaintiff in a personal-injury action 
that was eventually dismissed by the court before trial, largely as a result of 
respondent’s actions.  He missed two discovery deadlines for providing medical 
reports to the defendant and intentionally failed to appear at the final pretrial 
hearing.  At no time did respondent request a deadline extension.  After the case 
was dismissed, respondent continued to meet with the client but failed to inform 
her of the dismissal.  He also failed to notify the client as required that he did not 
carry malpractice insurance. 
{¶ 19} In addition to the eight Disciplinary Rule violations respondent 
committed during the underlying case, he has three prior license suspensions, 
including one for neglect of entrusted legal matters and failure to keep clients 
informed, and two for not complying with attorney-registration requirements.  
Based on respondent’s utter failure to properly represent his client and his history 
January Term, 2009 
7 
 
of ethical violations, I would suspend him from the practice of law indefinitely, 
allowing us to determine whether respondent should be readmitted upon a petition 
for reinstatement pursuant to Gov.Bar R. V(10)(E)(4).  See Cincinnati Bar Assn. 
v. Sullivan (1992), 65 Ohio St.3d 293, 603 N.E.2d 983 (indefinitely suspending 
attorney for missing court deadlines and hearings, repeatedly failing to comply 
fully with court orders, and showing disrespect for the court, along with a prior 
public reprimand for ethical violations). 
 
O’CONNOR and CUPP, JJ., concur in the foregoing opinion. 
__________________ 
 
James P. Koerner, for relator. 
 
Patrick D. Quinn, for respondent. 
______________________