[Cite as Erie-Huron Grievance Commt. v. Stoll, 127 Ohio St.3d 290, 2010-Ohio-5985.] 

ERIE-HURON GRIEVANCE COMMITTEE v. STOLL. 

[Cite as Erie-Huron Grievance Commt. v. Stoll, 

127 Ohio St.3d 290, 2010-Ohio-5985.] 

Attorneys — Misconduct — Neglecting entrusted legal matter — Failing to act 

with reasonable diligence and promptness — Two-year suspension, one 

year stayed, on conditions.

(No. 2010-1217 — Submitted October 13, 2010 — Decided December 14, 2010.) 

ON CERTIFIED REPORT by the Board of Commissioners on Grievances and 

Discipline of the Supreme Court, No. 09-085. 

__________________ 

Per Curiam. 

{¶ 1} Respondent, Thomas John Stoll of Norwalk, Ohio, Attorney 

Registration No. 0064191, was admitted to the practice of law in Ohio in 1994. In 

September 2009, relator, Erie-Huron Grievance Committee, filed a 22-count 

complaint charging respondent with violations of the Code of Professional 

Responsibility and the Ohio Rules of Professional Conduct. Twenty-one of those 

counts arose from respondent’s representation of 21 different clients in probate 

and guardianship proceedings in the Huron County Common Pleas Court. In each 

instance, respondent failed to file necessary documents, despite repeated requests 

from that court. Count 22 involved a similar failure to file in bankruptcy court. 

{¶ 2} A panel of the Board of Commissioners on Grievances and 

Discipline found that respondent had committed the misconduct alleged and 

recommended that respondent be suspended from the practice of law in Ohio for 

two years, with one year stayed, on the condition that reinstatement be contingent 

upon respondent’s (1) providing medical evidence establishing his ability to 

ethically and competently practice law, (2) maintaining his contract with the Ohio 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO

2 

Lawyers Assistance Program (“OLAP”), and (3) serving a two-year probation 

period after reinstatement with a monitor to be selected by relator. The board, in 

turn, adopted the panel’s report as its own. Respondent filed objections to the 

board’s report, urging us to stay the entire two-year suspension based upon the 

mitigation evidence presented. For the reasons to follow, we overrule 

respondent’s objections and adopt the board’s findings of fact, conclusions of law, 

and recommended sanction. 

Misconduct

{¶ 3} At his hearing before the panel, respondent stipulated to the 

misconduct alleged. In counts 2 through 21, respondent was retained by separate 

clients in estate proceedings before the Probate Division of the Huron County 

Common Pleas Court between 1998 and 2007. Respondent admitted that in each 

case, he did not file the documents necessary to close those estates despite 

repeated requests from the court in each instance to do so. 

{¶ 4} Counts 1 and 22 also arose from respondent’s failure to file 

documents. Count 1 states that respondent was retained in June 2007 to file an 

accounting in a guardianship matter. Respondent stipulated that he did not file 

that account or seek an extension of time to do so, despite repeated requests by the 

court. Count 22 states that respondent initiated an adversary proceeding in 

bankruptcy court in 2005 for his client. A settlement was eventually proposed and 

accepted, but respondent did not submit the settlement entry for approval, which 

led to the dismissal of the case and prejudice to his client. 

{¶ 5} The panel found that in each of the estate matters (counts 2 through 

21), respondent had neglected a legal matter entrusted to him. Accordingly, 

violations of DR 6-101(A)(3) were found in each count, and because the 

misconduct began before February 1, 2007, and continued thereafter, the board 

found them to be continuing violations. A violation of DR 6-101(A)(3) was also 

found in count 22, where respondent’s lack of diligence and neglect resulted in 
January Term, 2010 

3 

the dismissal of his client’s bankruptcy case. Finally, in the count 1 guardianship 

matter, respondent’s failure to file a requested accounting was found to constitute 

a violation of Prof.Cond.R. 1.3. 

{¶ 6} The board adopted the panel’s findings of misconduct, as do we. 

Sanction 

{¶ 7} In recommending a sanction for this misconduct, the board 

considered whether any of the mitigating and aggravating 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.”) applied. The board found two aggravating factors: (1) a 

pattern of misconduct extending for more than ten years (BCGD Proc.Reg. 

10(B)(1)(c)), and (2) multiple offenses involving 20 or more clients (BCGD 

Proc.Reg. 10(B)(1)(d)). 

{¶ 8} In mitigation, respondent attempted to attribute his misconduct to 

poor overall physical health and depression. Respondent presented no testimony 

from a medical professional as to the former, but at the request of the panel, 

submitted records of medical treatment by his family doctor since 1998. These 

records showed sporadic visits for assorted ailments and general malaise over the 

years, but they did not substantiate an ongoing chronic condition as respondent 

seemed to imply. 

{¶ 9} Respondent also testified that he had suffered from depression and 

anxiety for several years. Respondent did not, however, present any evidence that 

he had ever been diagnosed or treated for these conditions. Instead, respondent 

presented the testimony of an OLAP counselor, Megan R. Snyder, M.S.W., 

L.I.S.W. She stated that respondent had initially contacted OLAP just days before 

the panel hearing. She further stated that respondent did suffer from depression 

and anxiety, but she did not render an opinion as to whether respondent’s 

depression and anxiety actually contributed to his neglect of the legal matters 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO

4 

entrusted to him over the time period in question. Snyder’s June 10, 2010 followup letter also offered no opinion in that regard, but did state that respondent was 

complying with his OLAP contract. Respondent testified that his emotional 

condition interfered almost exclusively with his estate practice, which, by his own 

admission, constituted only 20 percent of his practice. Thus, the majority of his 

case load was unaffected by his emotional condition. 

{¶ 10} The board was also concerned by respondent’s inability to halt his 

ongoing neglect of the cases cited in the complaint, despite repeated attempts by 

the probate court to assist him. The Huron County probate and juvenile judge 

testified that in the fall of 2006, he had the first of eight meetings with respondent 

to “motivate [respondent] to complete the work that he was behind on.” Each 

month, the judge would meet with respondent and review a spreadsheet of cases 

in which he was tardy in filing certain pleadings. The judge testified that each 

month, respondent “would invariably indicate to me that he was very close to 

completing a certain case or closing out a certain case,” but that was rarely true. 

{¶ 11} Ultimately, the board did not explicitly find respondent’s 

depression and anxiety to be factors in mitigation. It did, however, find three 

other factors in mitigation: (1) absence of a prior disciplinary record, (2) a 

cooperative attitude toward the proceedings, and (3) respondent’s overall 

reputation (BCGD Proc.Reg. 10(B)(2)(a),(d), and (e)). The board also noted that 

respondent acknowledged the wrongfulness of his conduct and expressed remorse 

for his actions. 

{¶ 12} The board recommended a two-year suspension from the practice 

of law, with one year stayed, and reinstatement contingent upon three conditions: 

(1) respondent’s submission of medical proof establishing his ability to 

competently and ethically practice law, (2) his continued compliance with his 

OLAP contract, and (3) his successful completion of a two-year probation period 
January Term, 2010 

5 

after reinstatement under the supervision of a monitor to be appointed by relator. 

Respondent, however, seeks to have the entire two-year suspension stayed. 

{¶ 13} We adopt the board’s recommendation, as well as its findings of 

fact and conclusions of law. In adopting the board’s proposed sanction, we rely on 

two decisions. In Disciplinary Counsel v. Bowman, 110 Ohio St.3d 480, 2006-

Ohio-4333, 854 N.E.2d 480, we considered the appropriate sanction for an 

attorney who, as here, suffered from depression and was participating in the 

OLAP program. We held that an actual suspension from the practice of law with 

conditions for reinstatement was warranted “in order to protect the public and to 

ensure that respondent is able to successfully manage his illness.” Id. at ¶ 39. We 

reached the same result more recently in Columbus Bar Assn. v. Ellis, 120 Ohio 

St.3d 89, 2008-Ohio-5278, 896 N.E.2d 703. 

{¶ 14} Respondent is hereby suspended from the practice of law in Ohio 

for two years, with one year stayed. Reinstatement is conditioned on (1) 

respondent’s submission of medical proof establishing his ability to competently 

and ethically practice law and (2) his continued compliance with his OLAP 

contract. Upon reinstatement, respondent must undergo a two-year probation 

period under the supervision of a monitor to be appointed by relator. Costs are 

taxed to respondent. 

Judgment accordingly. 

 BROWN, C.J., and PFEIFER, LUNDBERG STRATTON, O’CONNOR,

O’DONNELL, LANZINGER, and CUPP, JJ., concur. 

__________________ 

 Richard B. Hauser, Certified Bar Counsel, for relator. 

 Thomas J. Stoll, pro se. 

______________________