Title: Cincinnati Bar Assn. v. Rose

State: ohio

Issuer: Ohio Supreme Court

Document:

[Cite as Cincinnati Bar Assn. v. Rose, 114 Ohio St.3d 177, 2007-Ohio-3606.] 
 
 
CINCINNATI BAR ASSOCIATION v. ROSE. 
[Cite as Cincinnati Bar Assn. v. Rose, 114 Ohio St.3d 177, 2007-Ohio-3606.] 
Attorneys at law — Misconduct — Failure to disclose lack of professional liability 
insurance — Practice of law while registered as inactive — Suspension 
for six months. 
(No. 2007-0322 — Submitted April 17, 2007 — Decided July 18, 2007.) 
ON CERTIFIED REPORT by the Board of Commissioners on Grievances and 
Discipline of the Supreme Court, No. 06-069. 
__________________ 
 
Per Curiam. 
{¶ 1} Respondent, Janet Toby Rose of Cincinnati, Ohio, Attorney 
Registration No. 0015081, was admitted to the practice of law in Ohio in 1978.  
The Board of Commissioners on Grievances and Discipline recommends that we 
now suspend respondent’s license to practice for six months based on findings 
that (1) she failed to disclose to a client that she lacked professional liability 
insurance and (2) she appeared on a client’s behalf while registered as inactive.  
See Gov.Bar R. VI(2).  On review, we agree that respondent violated the Code of 
Professional Responsibility and hold that a six-month suspension, to commence 
when respondent regains her active status, is appropriate. 
{¶ 2} Relator, Cincinnati Bar Association, charged respondent on August 
7, 2007, with two counts of professional misconduct.  The board served 
respondent with the complaint by certified mail, but she did not answer, and 
relator filed a motion for default.  See Gov.Bar R. V(6)(F).  A master 
commissioner appointed by the board granted the motion, finding that respondent 
had violated DR 1-102(A)(5) (prohibiting conduct prejudicial to the 
administration of justice), 1-104 (requiring disclosure to a client if the lawyer fails 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO 
2 
to carry sufficient professional liability insurance), and 3-101(B) (practicing law 
in violation of professional regulations in that jurisdiction) and recommending a 
six-month suspension.  The board adopted the findings of misconduct and 
recommendation. 
Misconduct 
Count I 
{¶ 3} In October 2003, respondent agreed to represent Kamel M. 
Kassem in a divorce action.  Respondent allegedly contracted to provide Kassem 
with legal services in exchange for Kassem’s completing various construction 
projects in respondent’s home.  Relator charged that respondent had thereby 
violated DR 5-101(A)(1) (prohibiting a lawyer, without the client’s consent after 
full disclosure, from accepting employment if the lawyer’s exercise of 
professional judgment may reasonably be affected by the lawyer’s own interests). 
{¶ 4} Relator did not prove that respondent had failed to obtain her 
client’s consent to the alleged fee agreement after full disclosure or that the 
agreement had affected the exercise of respondent’s professional judgment on 
Kassem’s behalf.  During the investigation of the alleged DR 5-101(A) violation, 
however, respondent acknowledged that she had not disclosed to Kassem that she 
did not maintain malpractice coverage.  Respondent thereby violated DR 1-104. 
Count II 
{¶ 5} Respondent registered for inactive status for the 2005-2007 
attorney registration biennium, and that status took effect on September 1, 2005. 
{¶ 6} On November 30, 2005, respondent filed a motion to modify 
support for Kassem.  A magistrate of the Hamilton County Court of Common 
Pleas, Domestic Relations Division, heard the motion on March 9, 2006, at which 
time respondent examined her own witnesses, cross-examined the defendant’s 
witnesses, and argued on Kassem’s behalf.  At the end of the proceeding, 
respondent advised the magistrate of her inactive status. 
January Term, 2007 
3 
{¶ 7} After further hearing, the magistrate ordered that all evidence and 
argument taken at the March 9 hearing be stricken from the record.  The 
magistrate also ordered a new hearing on Kassem’s support motion and ordered 
respondent to pay $1,020 in incurred legal expenses to the defendant within 60 
days.  The record contains no indication that respondent has complied with the 
court’s order. 
{¶ 8} By representing Kassem while registered as an inactive attorney, 
respondent violated DR 1-102(A)(5) and 3-101(B). 
Sanction 
{¶ 9} When imposing sanctions for attorney misconduct, we consider the 
ethical duties violated, the actual or potential injury caused, the attorney's mental 
state, and sanctions imposed in similar cases.  Disciplinary Counsel v. Brown 
(1999), 87 Ohio St.3d 316, 720 N.E.2d 525.  Before making a final determination, 
we also weigh evidence of the aggravating and mitigating 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 Proc.Reg.”).  Id.  See, also, Stark Cty. Bar Assn. v. Buttacavoli, 96 Ohio 
St.3d 424, 2002-Ohio-4743, 775 N.E.2d 818, and Cleveland Bar Assn. v. Glatki  
(2000), 88 Ohio St.3d 381, 726 N.E.2d 993. 
{¶ 10} Respondent violated her duty to her client to maintain malpractice 
insurance or disclose that she did not.  She violated her duty to the legal system 
and this profession by ignoring registration requirements designed to facilitate our 
oversight of the Ohio bar.  A six-month suspension of respondent’s license will 
ensure that respondent does not repeat her misconduct and will serve to deter 
other lawyers.  Moreover, respondent’s lack of a prior disciplinary record, the 
only mitigating factor in this case, see BCGD Proc.Reg. 10(B)(2)(a), does not 
outweigh the aggravating factor that respondent harmed a client vulnerable 
because of his financial difficulty.  See BCGD Proc.Reg. 10(B)(1)(h). 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO 
4 
{¶ 11} We therefore suspend respondent’s license to practice law in Ohio 
for six months and order that the suspension commence upon reactivation of her 
license pursuant to attorney-registration requirements.  Costs are taxed to 
respondent. 
Judgment accordingly. 
 
MOYER, C.J., PFEIFER, LUNDBERG STRATTON, O’CONNOR, O’DONNELL, 
LANZINGER and CUPP, JJ., concur. 
__________________ 
 
Diane Schneiderman and M. Michele Fleming, for relator. 
______________________