Title: Columbus Bar Assn. v. Deffet

State: ohio

Issuer: Ohio Supreme Court

Document:

[Cite as Columbus Bar Assn. v. Deffet, 98 Ohio St.3d 384, 2003-Ohio-1090.] 
 
 
COLUMBUS BAR ASSOCIATION v. DEFFET. 
[Cite as Columbus Bar Assn. v. Deffet, 98 Ohio St.3d 384, 2003–Ohio-1090.] 
Attorneys at law — Misconduct — Public reprimand — Engaging in conduct 
adversely reflecting on fitness to practice law — Neglect of an entrusted 
legal matter — Failing to carry out contract of employment — Advising 
an unrepresented person whose interests may be in conflict with the 
interests of his client — Failing to file certificate of registration with 
Supreme Court and not updating business address with Office of 
Attorney Registration — Failing to cooperate in investigation of 
misconduct. 
(No. 2002-1774 — Submitted January 8, 2003 — Decided March 26, 2003.) 
ON CERTIFIED REPORT by the Board of Commissioners on Grievances and 
Discipline of the Supreme Court, No. 02-33. 
__________________ 
 
Per Curiam. 
{¶1} 
Respondent, Stephen P. Deffet of Dublin, Ohio, Attorney 
Registration No. 0039384, was admitted to the Ohio bar in 1987.  In a complaint 
filed on June 17, 2002, relator, Columbus Bar Association, charged respondent 
with various violations of the Code of Professional Responsibility.  A panel of the 
Board of Commissioners on Grievances and Discipline considered the cause on 
the parties’ agreement and consent to discipline.  See Section 11 of the Rules and 
Regulations Governing Procedure on Complaints and Hearings Before the Board 
of Commissioners on Grievances and Discipline. 
{¶2} 
According to evidence before the panel, respondent agreed in 2001 
to prepare a quitclaim deed for a client who was separated from her husband and 
contemplating divorce.  The client wanted title of a marital residence transferred 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO 
2 
from her husband’s name to her name and paid respondent $150 for this service.  
Respondent met with the client and her estranged husband and arranged for both 
to sign the quitclaim deed. 
{¶3} 
Respondent did not inquire as to whether the husband was 
represented by counsel, nor did he advise the husband to consult independent 
counsel about the transaction.  After the meeting, respondent also failed to 
promptly file the quitclaim deed and did not respond to his client’s requests for 
the refund of her money.  When he met with his client and her husband, 
respondent had not filed a certificate of registration with the Clerk of the Supreme 
Court, and he had not updated his business address with the Office of Attorney 
Registration as required by Gov.Bar R. VI(1)(A) and (D). 
{¶4} 
For this conduct, the panel found respondent in violation of DR 1-
102(A)(6) (engaging in conduct adversely reflecting on an attorney’s fitness to 
practice law), 6-101(A)(3) (neglecting an entrusted legal matter), 7-101(A)(2) 
(failing to carry out a contract of employment), and 7-104(A)(2) (advising an 
unrepresented person whose interests may be in conflict with the interests of 
client), and Gov.Bar R. VI(1)(A) and (D).1  Because his out-of-date registration 
impeded relator’s efforts to locate respondent and because he did not 
conscientiously reply to relator’s investigative inquiries, the panel also found a 
violation of Gov.Bar R. V(4)(G) (failing to cooperate in an investigation of 
misconduct). 
{¶5} 
In recommending a sanction for this misconduct, the panel 
considered that respondent had initially been uncooperative during the 
disciplinary process.  However, respondent had no prior disciplinary record, had 
not acted out of dishonesty or selfishness, made some good faith efforts to rectify 
the consequences of his misconduct, and was otherwise a reputable practitioner.  
                                                 
1 In addition, the panel noted violations of DR 7-101(A)(1) (failing to seek client’s lawful 
objectives); however, the  parties withdrew this allegation. 
January Term, 2003 
3 
The panel then recommended the sanction recommended by the parties — a 
public reprimand. 
{¶6} 
The board adopted the panel’s findings of misconduct and 
recommendation.  We concur in both decisions.  Accordingly, respondent is 
hereby publicly reprimanded for his violations of DR 1-102(A)(6), 6-101(A)(3), 
7-101(A)(2), and 7-104(A)(2), and Gov.Bar R. VI(1)(A) and (1)(D) and V(4)(G).  
Costs are taxed to respondent. 
Judgment accordingly. 
 
RESNICK, F.E. SWEENEY, PFEIFER, COOK, LUNDBERG STRATTON and 
O’CONNOR, JJ., concur. 
 
MOYER, C.J., dissents. 
__________________ 
 
Moyer, C.J., dissenting. 
{¶1} 
I would suspend respondent for six months and stay the 
entire suspension. 
__________________ 
 
Isaac, Brant, Ledman & Teetor, L.L.P., and Joanne S. Peters; Lance 
Tibbles, pro hac vice; Bruce A. Campbell, Bar Counsel, and Jill M. Snitcher 
McQuain, Assistant Bar Counsel, for relator. 
 
Stephen P. Deffet, pro se. 
__________________