Title: Akron Bar Assn. v. Dismuke

State: ohio

Issuer: Ohio Supreme Court

Document:

[Until this opinion appears in the Ohio Official Reports advance sheets, it may be cited as 
Akron Bar Assn. v. Dismuke, Slip Opinion No. 2011-Ohio-1444.] 
 
 
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-1444 
AKRON BAR ASSOCIATION v. DISMUKE. 
[Until this opinion appears in the Ohio Official Reports advance sheets, it 
may be cited as Akron Bar Assn. v. Dismuke,  
Slip Opinion No. 2011-Ohio-1444.] 
Attorneys at law — Misconduct — Neglect of client matters — Failure to 
cooperate with disciplinary investigation — Failure to keep attorney-
registration information current — Two-year suspension with one year 
stayed on conditions. 
(No. 2010-1889 — Submitted January 19, 2011 — Decided March 31, 2011.) 
ON CERTIFIED REPORT by the Board of Commissioners on Grievances and 
Discipline of the Supreme Court, No. 09-090. 
__________________ 
Per Curiam. 
{¶ 1} Respondent, Daniel K. Dismuke of Stow, Ohio, Attorney 
Registration No. 0074292, was admitted to the practice of law in Ohio in 2001.  
On November 3, 2009, we suspended respondent from the practice of law for his 
failure to register as an attorney for the 2009 to 2011 biennium.  In re Attorney 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO 
2 
 
Registration Suspension of Dismuke, 123 Ohio St.3d 1475, 2009-Ohio-5786, 915 
N.E.2d 1256. 
{¶ 2} On December 7, 2009, relator, Akron Bar Association, filed a two-
count complaint charging respondent with violations of the Rules of Professional 
Conduct arising from his neglect of two client matters, his failure to timely 
register with this court and keep the court apprised of his current address, and his 
failure to cooperate in the ensuing disciplinary investigation.  Respondent filed an 
answer admitting each of the allegations in relator’s complaint and alleging 
certain facts in mitigation. 
{¶ 3} At the panel hearing, the parties submitted stipulations of fact and 
misconduct, relator submitted a transcript of respondent’s deposition testimony, 
and respondent offered his own testimony in mitigation.  Having considered the 
evidence, the panel and board found that clear and convincing evidence 
demonstrated that respondent committed each of the charged violations, and they 
recommend that we suspend respondent from the practice of law for two years, 
with the second year stayed on conditions.  We adopt these findings of fact and 
misconduct and agree that a two-year suspension with the second year stayed on 
the recommended conditions is the appropriate sanction for respondent’s 
misconduct. 
Misconduct 
{¶ 4} With respect to Count 1, respondent has admitted that he received 
a $1,000 retainer from a client to file a motion for judicial release and that he 
never filed the motion.  Although the client later terminated his representation and 
requested a refund, respondent did not refund the client’s money or return his file.  
At his deposition, respondent testified that he had withdrawn the retainer from his 
client trust account with the intent to withdraw from representation and refund the 
client’s retainer, but he kept the cash in the client’s file for some time.  Relator 
assisted him in returning the money to the client. 
January Term, 2011 
3 
 
{¶ 5} In Count 2, respondent admitted that he was appointed by the 
Summit County Court of Common Pleas to represent a man in a criminal matter 
and that he obtained a waiver of his client’s appearance at a pretrial.  When the 
client failed to appear for a subsequently scheduled pretrial hearing, however, the 
court issued a capias for the client’s arrest.  Although respondent failed to return 
many of the client’s phone calls, during one phone conversation he assured the 
client that he would take care of the matter. 
{¶ 6} Respondent admits that he failed to cooperate with relator’s 
investigation and to respond to the allegations against him.  He did not respond to 
two letters of inquiry sent to him by regular mail.  And, of the six letters of 
inquiry that relator and disciplinary counsel sent by certified mail, three were 
returned as unclaimed, two were returned with marks indicating that they were 
not deliverable as addressed, and one was returned marked, “moved—left no 
address—unable to forward.”  A notice posted at respondent’s office indicated 
that he was no longer there.  Respondent admitted that he had abandoned client 
files at that location, that he had failed to timely register with this court, and that 
he had failed to keep the Office of Attorney Services apprised of his current 
address. 
{¶ 7} Respondent admits that his conduct with respect to each count 
violated Prof.Cond.R. 1.3 (requiring a lawyer to act with reasonable diligence in 
representing a client) and 1.4 (requiring a lawyer to reasonably communicate with 
his or her client) and Gov.Bar R. V(4)(G) (requiring a lawyer to cooperate with a 
disciplinary investigation) and VI(1)(D) (requiring attorneys to keep the Office of 
Attorney Services apprised of their residence and office addresses) and that his 
conduct in Count 1 also violated Prof.Cond.R. 1.15 (requiring a lawyer to 
preserve the identity of client funds and property and promptly deliver funds or 
other property that the client is entitled to receive). 
Sanction 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO 
4 
 
{¶ 8} 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 Section 10(B) of the Rules and Regulations Governing Procedure on 
Complaints and Hearings Before the Board of Commissioners on Grievances and 
Discipline (“BCGD Proc.Reg.”).  Disciplinary Counsel v. Broeren, 115 Ohio 
St.3d 473, 2007-Ohio-5251, 875 N.E.2d 935, ¶ 21. 
{¶ 9} As aggravating factors, the panel and board found that respondent 
had committed multiple offenses, that he had initially failed to cooperate in 
relator’s investigation, and that he had abandoned client files.  BCGD Proc.Reg. 
10(B)(1)(d) and (e).  As mitigating factors, they found that respondent had no 
prior disciplinary record or selfish motive, that he had eventually cooperated with 
the disciplinary investigation, and that he had made restitution to the client 
affected by his conduct in count 1.  See BCGD Proc.Reg. 10(B)(2)(a), (b), (c), 
and (d). 
{¶ 10} Although respondent testified that he suffered from depression and 
other medical conditions that left him tired and unable to focus on his work, those 
conditions do not qualify as mitigating factors because he has failed to (1) submit 
a diagnosis from a qualified health care professional, (2) demonstrate that the 
conditions contributed to his misconduct, (3) demonstrate a sustained period of 
successful treatment, and (4) submit a prognosis from a qualified health-care 
professional that he will be able to return to the competent, ethical, professional 
practice of law.  BCGD Proc.Reg. 10(B)(2)(g)(i) through (iv). 
{¶ 11} Relator recommended at least a one-year suspension from the 
practice of law with six months stayed on the conditions that respondent serve a 
period of monitored probation, bring his continuing legal education (“CLE”) 
January Term, 2011 
5 
 
credits under Gov.Bar R. X current, complete six hours of CLE in law-office 
management, and enter into a contract with the Ohio Lawyers Assistance Program 
(“OLAP”) and comply with its terms. 
{¶ 12} The panel and board, however, recommend that we suspend 
respondent from the practice of law for two years, with the second year stayed on 
the conditions recommended by relator, and that his suspension not commence 
until he has properly registered with this court and his registration suspension has 
been terminated. 
{¶ 13} 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 on conditions for conduct similar to that of respondent.  
Gresley had neglected a number of client matters, failed to reasonably 
communicate with his clients, failed to return unearned fees, and failed to 
cooperate in the resulting disciplinary investigations.  Id.  at ¶ 4-20.  Because it 
involved dishonesty and the failure to pay restitution and affected seven clients, 
Gresley’s conduct was more egregious than that of respondent.  Id. at ¶ 17, 26.  
And in Akron Bar Assn. v. McNerney, 122 Ohio St.3d 40, 2009-Ohio-2374, 907 
N.E.2d 1167, we imposed a two-year suspension with the second year stayed on 
conditions for an attorney’s failure to preserve the identity of client funds, failure 
to keep complete client trust account records, failure to notify clients that the 
attorney’s malpractice insurance had lapsed, and failure to properly register as an 
attorney. 
{¶ 14} Having considered respondent’s conduct, the aggravating and 
mitigating factors, and the sanctions imposed for comparable conduct, we adopt 
the sanction recommended by the board.  And because respondent has testified 
that he has underlying mental-health issues that may have contributed to his 
misconduct, not only must respondent comply with the requirements for 
reinstatement set forth in Gov.Bar R. V(10), but he must also provide proof  that 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO 
6 
 
to a reasonable degree of medical certainty, he is mentally fit to return to the 
competent, professional, and ethical practice of law. 
{¶ 15} Accordingly, Daniel K. Dismuke is hereby suspended from the 
practice of law for two years, with the second year stayed on the conditions that 
respondent complete one year of probation, monitored by an attorney appointed 
by relator pursuant to Gov.Bar R. V(9), bring his CLE credits required under 
Gov.Bar R. X current, complete six hours of CLE in law-office management in 
addition to the CLE credits under Gov.Bar R. X, enter into an OLAP contract, and 
comply with all treatment recommendations.  This suspension shall commence 
after respondent has satisfied all requirements for the termination of his current 
suspension for failure to comply with the registration requirements of Gov.Bar R. 
VI.  Any application for reinstatement shall be conditioned upon proof to a 
reasonable degree of medical certainty that respondent is mentally fit to return to 
the competent, professional, and ethical practice of law.  Costs are taxed to 
respondent. 
Judgment accordingly. 
 
O’CONNOR, C.J., and PFEIFER, LUNDBERG STRATTON, O’DONNELL, 
LANZINGER, CUPP, and MCGEE BROWN, JJ., concur. 
__________________ 
Anderson & Miller, L.P.A., and Dreama Anderson; Kisling, Nestico & 
Redick, L.L.C., and Robert W. Redick; and William G. Chris, Bar Counsel, for 
relator. 
 
Daniel K. Dismuke, pro se. 
______________________