Title: Disciplinary Counsel v. Goebl

State: ohio

Issuer: Ohio Supreme Court

Document:

[Until this opinion appears in the Ohio Official Reports advance sheets, it may be cited as 
Disciplinary Counsel v. Goebl, Slip Opinion No. 2018-Ohio-5.] 
 
 
 
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. 2018-OHIO-5 
DISCIPLINARY COUNSEL v. GOEBL. 
[Until this opinion appears in the Ohio Official Reports advance sheets, it 
may be cited as Disciplinary Counsel v. Goebl, Slip Opinion No.  
2018-Ohio-5.] 
Attorneys—Misconduct—Violations of the Rules of Professional Conduct and the 
Rules for the Government of the Bar—Conditionally stayed six-month 
suspension. 
(No. 2017-1083—Submitted September 13, 2017—Decided January 2, 2018.) 
ON CERTIFIED REPORT by the Board of Professional Conduct of the Supreme 
Court, No. 2016-054. 
_______________________ 
Per Curiam. 
{¶ 1} Respondent, Michael Joseph Goebl, of Akron, Ohio, Attorney 
Registration No. 0080489, was admitted to the practice of law in Ohio in 2006. 
{¶ 2} On November 4, 2016, relator, disciplinary counsel, filed a complaint 
against Goebl with the Board of Professional Conduct.  Relator alleged that Goebl 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO 
 
2
violated Prof.Cond.R. 8.1(b) by knowingly failing to respond to demands for 
information and that he violated Gov.Bar R. V(9)(G) by neglecting or refusing to 
assist in relator’s investigation of the allegations in the complaint.  The parties 
entered into stipulations of fact, misconduct, and aggravating and mitigating factors 
and proposed a sanction consisting of a six-month suspension, fully stayed on 
conditions. 
{¶ 3} Based on the parties’ stipulations, a panel of the board found by clear 
and convincing evidence that Goebl committed the charged violations and 
recommended that he be suspended from the practice of law for six months with 
the suspension fully stayed on conditions.  The board adopted the panel’s findings 
and recommendation and further recommended that Goebl be ordered to pay the 
costs of the proceedings.  We adopt the board’s report in its entirety and suspend 
Goebl from the practice of law for six months, fully stayed on conditions. 
Misconduct 
{¶ 4} Goebl’s misconduct is solely the result of his failure to cooperate with 
relator’s investigation of the overdraft of his Interest on Lawyer’s Trust Account 
(“IOLTA”), following the theft and fraudulent issuance of his IOLTA checks by a 
third party.  On January 6, 2016, relator sent a letter of inquiry to Goebl inquiring 
about the overdraft of his IOLTA.  Goebl timely replied to the letter; however, his 
response did not include most of the information requested.  He later advised relator 
that he would send additional responsive information within ten days, but he failed 
to do so.  And he failed to respond to multiple voicemail messages left for him by 
relator. 
{¶ 5} On April 28, 2016, relator sent Goebl a letter requesting that he 
immediately provide the information requested in the January 6, 2016 letter.  
Although relator sent the letter by e-mail and regular first-class U.S. Mail to the 
addresses that Goebl had provided to the Office of Attorney Services, Goebl did 
January Term, 2018 
 
3
not respond to those communications or a follow-up letter sent by certified mail in 
June 2016. 
{¶ 6} On July 20, 2016, relator sent Goebl a subpoena duces tecum 
compelling his attendance at a deposition on August 18, 2016.  Although Goebel 
never notified relator that he either would be unable or did not intend to appear, he 
failed to appear for the deposition and failed to respond to a voicemail message 
inquiring about his whereabouts.  Relator personally delivered a subpoena duces 
tecum to Goebl at his place of employment compelling his attendance at a second 
attempted deposition on September 27, 2016.  But again Goebl failed to appear or 
respond in any respect. 
{¶ 7} In January 2017, Goebl was evaluated by Jann K. Miller, Ph.D., and 
diagnosed with adjustment disorder with anxiety.  He appeared at relator’s office 
for a deposition in April 2017 and has since cooperated with relator’s investigation 
of the overdraft of his IOLTA account. 
{¶ 8} The parties stipulated and the board found by clear and convincing 
evidence that Goebl’s conduct violated Prof.Cond.R. 8.1(b) (failure to respond to 
demands for information by relator) and Gov.Bar R. V(9)(G) (neglecting or 
refusing to assist in relator’s investigation).  We agree with the board’s findings of 
misconduct. 
Sanction 
{¶ 9} When imposing sanctions for attorney misconduct, we consider 
several relevant factors, including the ethical duties that the lawyer violated, the 
aggravating and mitigating factors listed in Gov.Bar R. V(13), any other relevant 
factors, and the sanctions imposed in similar cases. 
{¶ 10} Here, the parties stipulated and the board found that Goebl’s lack of 
cooperation with the investigative stages of the disciplinary process is an 
aggravating factor in this case.  See Gov.Bar R. V(13)(B)(5). 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO 
 
4
{¶ 11} The parties stipulated and the board found the following mitigating 
factors: the absence of a prior disciplinary record, the absence of a dishonest or 
selfish motive, and full and free disclosure to the board and a cooperative attitude 
toward these proceedings.  See Gov.Bar R. V(13)(C)(1), (2), and (4).  Although 
Goebl has agreed to undergo an evaluation and actively engage in treatment with 
the Ohio Lawyers Assistance Program (“OLAP”), he has not presented any 
evidence that his diagnosed mental-health disorder contributed to his misconduct.  
Therefore, the board did not accord any mitigating weight to his diagnosed mental-
health disorder.  See Gov.Bar R. V(13)(C)(7). 
{¶ 12} In support of its recommended sanction, the board cited several cases 
in which a respondent’s conduct was limited to failing to cooperate with a 
disciplinary investigation.  In such cases, this court has imposed sanctions ranging 
from a public reprimand to an actual suspension from the practice of law.  See, e.g., 
Lorain Cty. Bar Assn. v. Paterson, 98 Ohio St.3d 446, 2003-Ohio-1638, 786 N.E.2d 
874 (publicly reprimanding an attorney for failing to respond to a disciplinary 
investigation when no aggravating factors were present); Cleveland Bar Assn. v. 
James, 109 Ohio St.3d 310, 2006-Ohio-2424, 847 N.E.2d 438 (imposing a one-
year suspension for an attorney’s failure to cooperate with a disciplinary 
investigation or to respond to a formal complaint). 
{¶ 13} We have typically imposed an actual suspension only when the 
respondent had prior discipline or completely failed to cooperate in the disciplinary 
process.  See, e.g., James at ¶ 9-10; Cleveland Bar Assn. v. Jaffe, 121 Ohio St.3d 
260, 2009-Ohio-763, 903 N.E.2d 628; Disciplinary Counsel v. Bunstine, 144 Ohio 
St.3d 115, 2015-Ohio-3729, 41 N.E.3d 384.  But we have often imposed fully 
stayed suspensions when the aggravating factors outweigh the mitigating factors or 
when there is a need to address a respondent’s mental health.  See, e.g., Geauga 
Cty. Bar Assn. v. Corrigan, 130 Ohio St.3d 84, 2011-Ohio-4731, 955 N.E.2d 984; 
January Term, 2018 
 
5
Disciplinary Counsel v. Walton, 147 Ohio St.3d 357, 2016-Ohio-7468, 65 N.E.3d 
748. 
{¶ 14} After independently reviewing the record, we agree with the parties, 
the panel, and the board that the appropriate sanction in this case is a suspension 
stayed on conditions that include participation in OLAP. 
{¶ 15} Accordingly, we suspend Michael Joseph Goebl from the practice of 
law for six months with the suspension fully stayed on the conditions that Goebl 
(1) submit to a mental-health evaluation conducted by the Ohio Lawyers Assistance 
Program within 30 days of the date of this decision, (2) fully comply with any and 
all treatment recommendations resulting from that evaluation, and (3) engage in no 
further misconduct.  If Goebl fails to comply with a condition of the stay, the stay 
will be revoked and he will serve the full six-month suspension.  Costs are taxed to 
Goebl. 
Judgment accordingly. 
O’CONNOR, C.J., and O’DONNELL, KENNEDY, FRENCH, O’NEILL, FISCHER, 
and DEWINE, JJ., concur. 
_________________ 
Scott J. Drexel, Disciplinary Counsel, and Jennifer A. Bondurant, Assistant 
Disciplinary Counsel, for relator. 
Donald R. Hicks, for respondent. 
_________________