Title: Disciplinary Counsel v. Kendrick

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. Kendrick, Slip Opinion No. 2016-Ohio-5600.] 
 
 
 
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. 2016-OHIO-5600 
DISCIPLINARY COUNSEL v. KENDRICK. 
[Until this opinion appears in the Ohio Official Reports advance sheets, it 
may be cited as Disciplinary Counsel v. Kendrick, Slip Opinion No.  
2016-Ohio-5600.] 
Attorneys—Misconduct—Violations of the Rules of Professional Conduct, 
including failing to hold clients’ property in client trust account—
Conditionally stayed one-year suspension. 
(No. 2016-0250—Submitted April 5, 2016—Decided September 1, 2016.) 
ON CERTIFIED REPORT by the Board of Professional Conduct of the  
Supreme Court, No. 2015-038. 
_______________________ 
Per Curiam. 
{¶ 1} Respondent, Linda Louise Kendrick of Delaware, Ohio, Attorney 
Registration No. 0078797, was admitted to the practice of law in Ohio in 2005. 
{¶ 2} On June 12, 2015, relator, disciplinary counsel, filed a two-count 
complaint against Kendrick with the Board of Professional Conduct.  In that 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO 
 
2
complaint, relator alleged that Kendrick violated the Rules of Professional Conduct 
by neglecting two separate client matters, failing to reasonably communicate with 
her clients, and using money paid by one client to pay the filing fee of another 
client.  The parties entered into stipulations of fact, misconduct, and aggravating 
and mitigating factors and agreed that a conditionally stayed one-year suspension 
is the appropriate sanction for Kendrick’s misconduct.  Although both parties were 
given the opportunity to submit briefs on a contested violation of Prof.Cond.R. 
8.4(c) (prohibiting a lawyer from engaging in conduct involving dishonesty, fraud, 
deceit, or misrepresentation), only relator filed a brief. 
{¶ 3} The panel granted the parties’ joint motion to waive the hearing, 
adopted their stipulations, found that Kendrick’s conduct violated Prof.Cond.R. 
8.4(c) and other disciplinary rules, and recommended that we adopt the parties’ 
recommended sanction.  The board adopted the findings of fact, conclusions of law, 
and recommendation of the panel.  No objections have been filed. 
{¶ 4} We adopt the board’s report in its entirety and suspend Kendrick from 
the practice of law for one year, fully stayed on conditions. 
Misconduct 
Count One 
{¶ 5} Christopher and Lisa Holmberg retained Kendrick to handle their 
bankruptcy filing.  Kendrick failed to deposit their payments into her client trust 
account and used their funds to pay another client’s filing fee.  As a result of 
Kendrick’s neglect, the Holmbergs’ bankruptcy filing was dismissed, though 
Kendrick was able to get the case reinstated and ultimately obtained a discharge of 
the Holmbergs’ debt. 
{¶ 6} The parties agreed that Kendrick’s conduct violated Prof.Cond.R. 
1.15(a) (requiring a lawyer to hold the property of clients in an interest-bearing 
client trust account, separate from the lawyer’s own property).  The board also 
found that Kendrick’s conduct violated Prof.Cond.R. 8.4(c), noting that we found 
January Term, 2016 
 
3
a violation of that rule based on similar conduct in Disciplinary Counsel v. Folwell, 
129 Ohio St.3d 297, 2011-Ohio-3181, 951 N.E.2d 775, ¶ 10-11 (finding that 
attorney’s use of client funds for other purposes, such as making payment to another 
client, violated Prof.Cond.R. 8.4(c)). 
Count Two 
{¶ 7} Dorothy Ballard retained Kendrick to represent her in a pending civil 
matter and paid a $500 retainer, which Kendrick did not deposit into her client trust 
account.  Kendrick failed to file a mediation report as required by the court and did 
not appear at the mediation hearing.  She also failed to communicate with Ballard.  
As a result of Kendrick’s neglect, the case was dismissed with prejudice.  Kendrick 
later refunded Ballard’s $500 retainer and agreed to pay her $2,000 over a period 
of approximately five months to compensate her for any damages caused by the 
dismissal of her case. 
{¶ 8} The parties stipulated and the board agreed that Kendrick’s conduct 
in this matter violated Prof.Cond.R. 1.3 (requiring a lawyer to act with reasonable 
diligence in representing a client), 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), 1.15(a), 1.16(e) (requiring a lawyer to promptly refund any unearned fee 
upon the lawyer’s withdrawal from employment), and 8.4(d) (prohibiting a lawyer 
from engaging in conduct that is prejudicial to the administration of justice). 
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), and the sanctions 
imposed in similar cases. 
{¶ 10} The parties stipulated and the board found that relevant mitigating 
factors include the absence of a prior disciplinary record, the absence of a dishonest 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO 
 
4
or selfish motive, Kendrick’s timely, good-faith effort to make restitution or to 
rectify the consequences of her misconduct, her full and free disclosure to the board 
and cooperative attitude during the course of the disciplinary proceedings, and 
evidence of her good character and reputation apart from this misconduct as 
demonstrated in four reference letters.  See Gov.Bar R. V(13)(C)(1) through (5).  In 
addition, the parties stipulated and the board found that Kendrick presented 
evidence sufficient to establish an additional mitigating factor—the existence of a 
mental-health disorder that meets all the requirements set forth in Gov.Bar R. 
V(13)(C)(7)1—based on the diagnosis of a persistent depressive disorder caused by 
her mother’s death. 
{¶ 11} In contrast, the parties stipulated and the board agreed that the only 
applicable aggravating factor is that Kendrick committed multiple violations of the 
Rules of Professional Conduct.  See Gov.Bar R. V(13)(B)(4). 
{¶ 12} The parties agreed that the appropriate sanction for Kendrick’s 
misconduct is a one-year suspension, fully stayed on the conditions that (1) a 
monitoring attorney is appointed to oversee Kendrick’s law practice, (2) Kendrick 
continues to participate in counseling as needed, (3) she submits to a psychological 
assessment conducted by the Ohio Lawyers Assistance Program (“OLAP”) and 
follows all OLAP recommendations, and (4) she pays Dorothy Ballard $2,000 as 
agreed. 
{¶ 13} In support of this recommendation, the board cites three cases in 
which we imposed one-year suspensions and fully stayed the suspension on 
conditions.  See Cleveland Metro. Bar Assn. v. Walker, 142 Ohio St.3d 452, 2015-
Ohio-733, 32 N.E.3d 437 (attorney neglected client matters, commingled personal 
                                                 
1 Gov.Bar R. V(13)(C)(7) provides that a mental-health disorder qualifies as a mitigating factor 
when all the following factors exist: a diagnosis of a disorder by a qualified health-care professional, 
a determination that the disorder contributed to the respondent’s misconduct, a sustained period of 
successful treatment, and a prognosis from a qualified health-care professional that the attorney will 
be able to return to the competent, ethical practice of law under specified conditions.   
January Term, 2016 
 
5
and client funds in his client trust account, and failed to promptly notify a client 
that the attorney had received funds in which the client had a lawful interest); Stark 
Cty. Bar Assn. v. DePasquale, 74 Ohio St.3d 6, 655 N.E.2d 730 (1995) (attorney 
failed to complete agreed legal services, failed to promptly pay client’s creditors, 
and used the client’s funds for his own benefit);  Disciplinary Counsel v. Doellman, 
127 Ohio St.3d 411, 2010-Ohio-5990, 940 N.E.2d 928 (attorney did not maintain a 
client trust account,  commingled personal and client funds, failed to notify a client 
that the attorney had received funds in which the client had a lawful interest, and 
used client funds for his own benefit). 
{¶ 14} Having thoroughly reviewed the record and considered our 
precedents, we adopt the board’s findings of fact and misconduct and aggravating 
and mitigating factors.  We also agree that a one-year suspension, fully stayed on 
conditions, is the appropriate sanction for Kendrick’s misconduct. 
{¶ 15} Accordingly, Linda Louise Kendrick is suspended from the practice 
of law in Ohio for one year, fully stayed on the conditions that she (1) serve a one-
year period of monitored probation in accordance with Gov.Bar R. V(21), (2) 
submit to a psychological assessment conducted by OLAP and comply with all 
OLAP recommendations, (3) continue to participate in mental-health counseling, 
(4) pay Dorothy Ballard $2,000 as previously agreed, and (5) engage in no further 
misconduct.  If Kendrick fails to comply with the terms of the stay, the stay will be 
lifted and she will serve the full one-year suspension.  Costs are taxed to Kendrick. 
Judgment accordingly. 
O’CONNOR, C.J., and PFEIFER, O’DONNELL, LANZINGER, KENNEDY, 
FRENCH, and O’NEILL, JJ., concur. 
_________________ 
Scott J. Drexel, Disciplinary Counsel, and Stacy Solochek Beckman, 
Assistant Disciplinary Counsel, for relator. 
Linda Louise Kendrick, pro se. 
‘SUPREME CouRT OF O10

6