Title: Columbus Bar Assn. v. Williams

State: ohio

Issuer: Ohio Supreme Court

Document:

[Until this opinion appears in the Ohio Official Reports advance sheets, it may be cited as 
Columbus Bar Assn. v. Williams, Slip Opinion No. 2011-Ohio-4381.] 
 
 
 
 
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. 2011-OHIO-4381 
COLUMBUS BAR ASSOCIATION v. WILLIAMS. 
[Until this opinion appears in the Ohio Official Reports advance sheets, it 
may be cited as Columbus Bar Assn. v. Williams,  
Slip Opinion No. 2011-Ohio-4381.] 
Attorneys — Misconduct — Multiple violations of Rules of Professional Conduct, 
including failing to act with reasonable diligence in representing a client 
and failing to keep the client reasonably informed about the status of a 
legal matter — Two-year suspension stayed on conditions. 
(No. 2010-0253 — Submitted April 6, 2011 — Decided September 7, 2011.) 
ON CERTIFIED REPORT by the Board of Commissioners on Grievances and 
Discipline of the Supreme Court, No. 09-082. 
__________________ 
Per Curiam. 
{¶ 1} Respondent Lewis Eugene Williams Jr. of Columbus, Ohio, 
Attorney Registration No. 0020686, was admitted to the practice of law in Ohio in 
1974.  On October 12, 2009, relator, Columbus Bar Association, filed a complaint 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO 
2 
 
charging respondent with neglect of client matters, failing to provide competent 
representation, failing to reasonably communicate with clients, failing to 
withdraw from representation when his physical or mental condition materially 
impaired his ability to represent his clients, and failing to perform the obligations 
of appointed counsel. 
{¶ 2} On February 8, 2010, the Board of Commissioners on Grievances 
and Discipline issued a report pursuant to Section 11(D) of the Rules and 
Regulations Governing Procedure on Complaints and Hearings Before the Board 
of Commissioners on Grievances and Discipline (“BCGD Proc.Reg.”) 
recommending that this court accept the parties’ consent-to-discipline agreement.  
The parties had stipulated that respondent violated numerous provisions of the 
Ohio Rules of Professional Conduct and that a two-year suspension from the 
practice of law with the entire suspension stayed on conditions was the 
appropriate sanction. 
{¶ 3} We twice remanded the matter to the board for further proceedings 
— first for correction of a clerical mistake in respondent’s affidavit and then for 
consideration of a more severe sanction.  125 Ohio St.3d 1456, 2010-Ohio-2752, 
928 N.E.2d 454 (Table); 126 Ohio St.3d 1571, 2010-Ohio-4502, 934 N.E.2d 346 
(Table). 
{¶ 4} On the second remand, the board appointed a panel to conduct a 
hearing, and the parties submitted stipulations of fact and misconduct.  The panel 
adopted those stipulations and, after hearing testimony from respondent, his 
former treating psychologist, and two character witnesses, recommended that 
respondent be suspended from the practice of law for two years, all stayed on the 
condition that he commit no further misconduct, serve two years of monitored 
probation, comply with his Ohio Lawyers’ Assistance Program (“OLAP”) 
contract, refrain from alcohol and drug use, and submit to any drug testing 
January Term, 2011 
3 
 
requested by OLAP or relator.  The board adopted the panel’s report in its 
entirety, as do we. 
Misconduct 
{¶ 5} The stipulated facts of the case show that in May 2007, respondent 
was appointed by the Franklin County Court of Common Pleas to appeal a man’s 
conviction of rape, attempted rape, murder, and attempted tampering with 
evidence.  Respondent filed a timely notice of appeal and requested extensions of 
time to have the trial transcript prepared and to file a brief.  After the transcript 
was filed, respondent requested and received a second extension of time to file the 
appellate brief.  When he failed to file a brief, the appellate court dismissed his 
client’s appeal for want of prosecution.  At the urging of the prosecuting attorney, 
the court of appeals reopened the case and appointed new counsel to prepare and 
file a brief. 
{¶ 6} Respondent acknowledges that at the very least, he should have filed 
an Anders brief on the client’s behalf.  He also admits that he failed to notify his 
client or the prosecutor that he did not intend to file a brief.  He states that at the 
time of his appointment, he suffered from depression and routinely used 
marijuana, but he failed to seek treatment or to advise the court, the bar 
association, or anyone else that he was unable to execute his duties as an 
appointed attorney. 
{¶ 7} With respect to count two, respondent was appointed to defend a 
man charged with aggravated robbery and aggravated murder in December 2007.  
Although respondent received notice of the trial date, he did not appear for trial, 
and he did not notify the court or his client that he would not appear.  Respondent 
testified that when it came time for him to go to court, he just did not leave his 
office.  The court ultimately appointed another attorney to represent the client. 
{¶ 8} The parties have stipulated and the board has found that 
respondent’s conduct with respect to each of these counts violates Prof.Cond.R. 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO 
4 
 
1.1 (requiring a lawyer to provide competent representation to a client), 1.3 
(requiring a lawyer to act with reasonable diligence in representing a client), 
1.4(a)(1) (requiring a lawyer to promptly inform the client of any decision or 
circumstance with respect to which the client’s informed consent is required), 
1.4(a)(2) (requiring a lawyer to reasonably consult with the client about the means 
by which the client’s objectives are to be accomplished), 1.4(a)(3) (requiring a 
lawyer to keep the client reasonably informed about the status of a matter), 
1.4(a)(4) (requiring a lawyer to comply as soon as practicable with reasonable 
requests for information from the client), 1.16(a)(2) (requiring a lawyer to 
withdraw from representation when the lawyer’s physical or mental condition 
materially impairs the lawyer’s ability to represent the client), and 6.2 (permitting 
a lawyer to seek to avoid appointment by a court to represent a person if 
representation of the client is likely to result in violation of the Ohio Rules of 
Professional Conduct or other law). 
{¶ 9} We adopt these findings of fact and misconduct. 
Sanction 
{¶ 10} 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 
listed in BCGD Proc.Reg. 10(B).  Disciplinary Counsel v. Broeren, 115 Ohio 
St.3d 473, 2007-Ohio-5251, 875 N.E.2d 935, ¶ 21. 
{¶ 11} The parties have stipulated and the board has found that 
respondent’s commission of multiple offenses and the vulnerability of the victims, 
both of whom faced serious criminal charges, are aggravating factors in this case.  
See BCGD Proc.Reg. 10(B)(1)(d) and (h). 
January Term, 2011 
5 
 
{¶ 12} With respect to mitigating factors, respondent testified that the 
events giving rise to the complaint arose from an uncharacteristic lapse in his 
mental state in late 2007 and early 2008.  He reported that during the early part of 
his career, he began to smoke marijuana regularly — a practice that he continued 
until he signed his OLAP contract on September 18, 2008 — and was diagnosed 
with and successfully treated for depression in the early 1980s. 
{¶ 13} Respondent testified that in 2007, he noticed that he was once 
again growing despondent — he suffered bouts of crying, became less productive, 
and could not force himself to do the work that needed to be done.  In 2008, 
respondent had an informal discussion with Dr. Dennis Eshbaugh, his former 
treating psychologist who had also provided expert testimony in some of 
respondent’s capital-murder cases.  Dr. Eshbaugh testified that while he did not 
formally diagnose respondent’s mental state, he observed that respondent 
exhibited all of the classic symptoms of clinical depression.  At his urging, 
respondent consulted with his family doctor and obtained a prescription for an 
antidepressant.  Respondent testified that within a month of starting this 
medication, his emotional state changed — he found that he was more focused 
and better equipped to cope with the pressures of his professional and personal 
life. 
{¶ 14} In talking with Dr. Eshbaugh, respondent realized that his 
marijuana use was exacerbating his depression.  At the urging of relator’s bar 
counsel, respondent entered into an OLAP contract and professes that with the 
exception of a prescribed antidepressant, he has abstained from all drug use.  The 
board observed, however, that respondent is not in full compliance with his OLAP 
contract, having attended only 67 or 68 of the 90 meetings he agreed to attend in 
90 days.  He also failed to seek outpatient treatment at Talbot Hall as required by 
the contract because he did not have health insurance and could not afford the 
required treatment. 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO 
6 
 
{¶ 15} Dr. Eshbaugh testified that he began to work as an expert witness 
with respondent in capital cases around 2000 and found him to be very competent 
and accomplished.  Based upon his conversation with respondent and rumors he 
had heard from other attorneys, Dr. Eshbaugh knew that respondent had problems 
in 2007-2008.  But Dr. Eshbaugh believed that when he worked with respondent 
on another capital case beginning in late 2008, respondent was back to being 
himself — dedicated, conscientious, competent — and that his treatment for 
depression was effective. 
{¶ 16} Respondent’s longtime friend, attorney Robert L. Griffin, testified 
that respondent represented him in a real property matter in early 2007 and 
obtained excellent results.  But when he attempted to refer a client to respondent 
in early 2008, respondent did not answer his e-mails or return his phone calls, so 
Griffin completed the representation without respondent’s assistance.  Later that 
year, Griffin received an e-mailed apology from respondent and subsequently 
talked with respondent about his problems.  In early 2009, Griffin referred a client 
with a real estate problem similar to his own to respondent, who competently 
handled the matter.  Griffin testified that he would not hesitate to refer clients to 
respondent in the future. 
{¶ 17} Respondent’s final character witness was Janet Grubb, a retired 
Franklin County municipal court judge.  She testified that she had worked with 
respondent in the public defender’s office in the late 1970s and early 1980s and 
had observed respondent as he practiced before her during her 18 years on the 
bench.  Judge Grubb stated that respondent was always prepared and in full 
command of his faculties when he appeared in her court, and that he was a very 
competent criminal-defense attorney.  She was shocked when she learned of 
respondent’s misconduct, which was out of character for such a highly regarded 
attorney. 
January Term, 2011 
7 
 
{¶ 18} Although the board found that respondent had failed to demonstrate 
that his depression qualified as a mitigating factor pursuant to BCGD Proc.Reg. 
10(B)(2)(g), the board found a number of mitigating factors, including 
respondent’s (1) lack of prior disciplinary offenses in more than 37 years of 
practice, see BCGD Proc.Reg. 10(B)(2)(a), (2) lack of a selfish or dishonest 
motive, see BCGD Proc.Reg. 10(B)(2)(b), (3) full and free disclosure to relator 
and the board, and his full cooperation in the disciplinary proceedings, see BCGD 
Proc.Reg. 10(B)(2)(d), and (4) expressions of sincere remorse for his conduct. 
{¶ 19} In their consent-to-discipline agreement, the parties stipulated that 
the appropriate sanction for respondent’s misconduct was a two-year suspension, 
stayed on the conditions that respondent commit no further misconduct, fully 
comply with his OLAP contract, and pay the costs of this disciplinary action. 
{¶ 20}  Following the remand for consideration of a harsher sanction, the 
board again recommended that we impose the same sanction proposed by the 
parties, with the condition that during the stayed suspension, respondent serve a 
two-year term of monitored probation, during which he shall (1) commit no 
further acts of misconduct, (2) comply with the terms of his OLAP contract and 
ensure that it remain in effect during his entire stayed suspension, and (3) submit 
to any drug-testing request made by OLAP or relator. 
{¶ 21} In Cleveland Metro. Bar Assn. v. Gresley, 127 Ohio St.3d 430, 
2010-Ohio-6208, 940 N.E.2d 945, we imposed a two-year suspension with the 
final six months stayed for an attorney who, among other things, had neglected a 
number of client matters,  failed to reasonably communicate with the affected 
clients, failed to promptly deliver funds that the clients were entitled to receive, 
engaged in conduct that was prejudicial to the administration of justice, engaged 
in conduct that adversely reflected upon his fitness to practice law, and initially 
failed to cooperate in the resulting disciplinary investigation.  Id. at ¶ 4-20, 27.  
Aggravating factors in Gresley included the respondent’s selfish motive, his 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO 
8 
 
pattern of misconduct, the harm he caused to vulnerable clients, and his initial 
failure to cooperate in the disciplinary investigation.  Id. at ¶ 22.  And in 
mitigation, we found that the respondent had no disciplinary record, had 
relinquished his bankruptcy-court electronic-case-filing privileges for one year 
effective March 2010, and had complied with other bankruptcy-sanction orders, 
and that he had ultimately cooperated in the disciplinary process.  Id. 
{¶ 22} Respondent’s conduct, while serious, was not as severe as 
Gresley’s.  It involved only two clients, compared to Gresley’s seven, respondent 
fully cooperated in the disciplinary investigation, and he was not charged with 
conduct prejudicial to the administration of justice or adversely reflecting upon 
his fitness to practice law.  In light of these factual differences, and the evidence 
demonstrating that no clients were harmed by respondent’s conduct, that he has 
received effective treatment for his depression, ceased his use of illegal 
substances, and, by all accounts, has returned to the competent, ethical, and 
professional practice of law, we agree that the sanction recommended by the 
board will adequately protect the public from future misconduct. 
{¶ 23} Accordingly, we suspend Lewis Eugene Williams Jr. from the 
practice of law for two years, all stayed on the conditions that he (1) commit no 
further acts of misconduct, (2) serve two years of monitored probation in 
accordance with Gov.Bar R. V(9), (3) refrain from alcohol and drug use, (4) fully 
comply with the terms of his OLAP contract and ensure that it remains in effect 
during his entire stayed suspension, and (5) submit to any drug testing requested 
by OLAP or relator.  If respondent fails to comply with the conditions of the stay, 
the stay shall be lifted, and respondent shall serve the full two years.  Costs are 
taxed to respondent. 
Judgment accordingly. 
O’CONNOR, C.J., and PFEIFER, LUNDBERG STRATTON, O’DONNELL, 
LANZINGER, CUPP, and MCGEE BROWN, JJ., concur. 
January Term, 2011 
9 
 
__________________ 
Bruce A. Campbell, Bar Counsel, and A. Alysha Clous, Assistant Bar 
Counsel; and Terry Sherman, for relator. 
Gerald G. Simmons, for respondent. 
______________________