[Cite as Columbus Bar Assn. v. Van Sickle, 128 Ohio St.3d 376, 2011-Ohio-774.] 

COLUMBUS BAR ASSOCIATION v. VAN SICKLE. 

[Cite as Columbus Bar Assn. v. Van Sickle, 

128 Ohio St.3d 376, 2011-Ohio-774.] 

Attorneys — Misconduct — Practicing law while license under suspension — 

Neglecting entrusted legal matters — Indefinite suspension. 

(No. 2010-1863 — Submitted January 4, 2011 — Decided February 24, 2011.) 

ON CERTIFIED REPORT by the Board of Commissioners on Grievances and 

Discipline of the Supreme Court, No. 10-084. 

__________________ 

Per Curiam. 

{¶ 1} Respondent, John Allan Van Sickle of Columbus, Ohio, Attorney 

Registration No. 0013780, was admitted to the practice of law in Ohio in 1983. In 

October 2009, relator, Columbus Bar Association, filed a five-count complaint 

charging respondent with multiple violations of the Code of Professional 

Responsibility and Rules of Professional Conduct arising from his practicing law 

while his license was under suspension for failure to register for the 2007 through 

2009 biennium, his neglect of several client matters, and his failure to respond to 

the resulting disciplinary investigations. 

{¶ 2} After reviewing the parties’ stipulations of fact and misconduct, a 

panel of the Board of Commissioners on Grievances and Discipline granted the 

parties’ joint motion to dismiss a number of alleged violations, dismissed sua 

sponte several stipulated violations that were not charged in the complaint, and 

recommended that respondent be suspended for two years with one year stayed on 

conditions. The board accepted the panel’s findings and its recommended 

sanction, and no objections have been filed. 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO

2 

{¶ 3} We find that respondent has committed misconduct. Given the 

nature of respondent’s misconduct and the limited evidence regarding his 

treatment for depression, however, we conclude that a greater sanction is 

warranted. Accordingly, we indefinitely suspend respondent from the practice of 

law and condition any future reinstatement on the submission of proof that 

respondent has participated in the Ohio Lawyers Assistance Program (“OLAP”), 

has obtained treatment for his depression and other diagnosed psychological 

conditions, has fulfilled all follow-up care and reporting requirements imposed by 

OLAP and his treating professionals, has made restitution to the clients discussed 

in count three, and has paid the costs of this proceeding. Upon petitioning for 

reinstatement, respondent shall also submit testimony from a qualified mentalhealth professional to demonstrate that he is capable of returning to the 

competent, ethical, and professional practice of law. 

Misconduct 

{¶ 4} The stipulated evidence demonstrates that from December 3, 2007, 

through October 28, 2008, respondent’s license was suspended for his failure to 

register for the 2007 through 2009 biennium. See In re Attorney Registration 

Suspension of Van Sickle, 116 Ohio St.3d 1420, 2007-Ohio-6463, 877 N.E.2d 

305. But during that suspension, respondent sent a letter to his wife’s former 

landlord identifying himself as a “Counselor and Attorney at Law” and stating 

that he was representing his wife in a security-deposit dispute. The parties 

stipulated, and we agree, that this conduct, which forms the basis of count one of 

the complaint, violates Prof.Cond.R. 5.5(a) (prohibiting a lawyer from practicing 

law in a jurisdiction in violation of the regulation of the legal profession in that 

jurisdiction). 

{¶ 5} With respect to count two, the parties stipulated that in August 

2006, a client retained respondent to prepare a will. However, respondent failed 

to draft the will and failed to respond to the client’s telephone inquiries regarding 
January Term, 2011 

3

the status of the matter or to another attorney’s requests that he return the client’s 

documents. We find that this conduct violates DR 7-101(A)(2) (prohibiting a 

lawyer from intentionally failing to carry out a contract of employment for legal 

services) and DR 9-102(B)(4) and Prof.Cond.R. 1.15(d) (both requiring a lawyer 

to promptly pay or deliver funds and property to which a client is entitled), as well 

as Prof.Cond.R. 1.3 (requiring a lawyer to act with reasonable diligence in 

representing a client) and 1.4(a)(3) (requiring a lawyer to keep a client reasonably 

informed about the status of a matter). 

{¶ 6} Count three arises from respondent’s conduct during his 

representation of a husband and wife in a bankruptcy proceeding. Although the 

bankruptcy court had ordered him to prepare and file certain documents, he failed 

to do so. Respondent did not access his files or his mail for three months after the 

locks to his office were changed, and he made no effort to have the post office 

forward his mail to another location. Consequently, respondent failed to receive 

notice from the bankruptcy court of a scheduled hearing and a subsequent showcause order and failed to appear. Although he was found in contempt of court, 

sanctioned, and ordered to return the fees he had received in the case, he failed to 

certify to the bankruptcy court that he had complied with its order. Based upon 

these facts, the parties stipulated, and we agree, that with respect to count three, 

respondent violated DR 1-102(A)(5) (prohibiting a lawyer from engaging in 

conduct that is prejudicial to the administration of justice), 1-102(A)(6) 

(prohibiting a lawyer from engaging in conduct that adversely reflects on the 

lawyer’s fitness to practice law), 2-110(A)1

 (prohibiting withdrawal from 

employment without taking steps to protect the client’s interests), 6-101(A)(3) 

 

1. Although the parties stipulate that respondent violated DR 2-110(A), “withdrawing from a 

matter without authorization and to the prejudice of the client,” they have not submitted any 

factual stipulation that the bankruptcy court’s rules require an attorney to obtain the court’s 

permission prior to withdrawal, as required by DR 2-110(A)(1). Therefore, we limit our finding to 

DR 2-110(A)(2). 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO

4 

(prohibiting neglect of an entrusted legal matter), 7-101(A)(1) (prohibiting a 

lawyer from intentionally failing to seek the lawful objectives of his client), 7-

101(A)(2), and 9-102(B)(4). 

{¶ 7} As to count four, the parties have stipulated that in June 2005, 

respondent entered an oral agreement to represent a man and his business partners 

regarding tax matters, the reorganization of certain business entities, and a 

possible bankruptcy. However, respondent has not communicated with the clients 

since 2005 and has failed to complete all the work. Although he did not return the 

client’s documents to them, he did deliver the entire file to relator in June 2007. 

The parties have stipulated, the panel and board have found, and we agree, that 

respondent’s conduct violated DR 7-101(A)(2) and 9-102(B)(4). The panel, 

however, dismissed the parties’ stipulation that respondent’s conduct after 

February 1, 2007, violated several Rules of Professional Conduct because 

violations of those rules had not been charged in the complaint. 

{¶ 8} With respect to the fifth and final count of relator’s complaint, the 

parties have stipulated that respondent failed to submit a written response to any 

of the grievances arising from his conduct in counts one through four. After he 

was subpoenaed, respondent did appear and testify at a June 2007 deposition, 

during which he agreed to provide relator with various documents and additional 

information; however, he failed to do so. And despite having been advised at the 

deposition of his obligation to cooperate with disciplinary authorities, and having 

expressed contrition for having failed to cooperate, respondent continued to 

ignore letters of inquiry regarding grievances that were filed after the deposition 

was held. Therefore, we find that respondent’s conduct violated Prof.Cond.R. 

8.1(b) (prohibiting a lawyer from knowingly failing to respond to a demand for 

information by a disciplinary authority during an investigation) and 8.4(h) 

(prohibiting a lawyer from engaging in conduct that adversely reflects on the 

lawyer's fitness to practice law). 
January Term, 2011 

5

Sanction 

{¶ 9} In recommending a sanction, the panel and board considered 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.”). See Stark 

Cty. Bar Assn. v. Buttacavoli, 96 Ohio St.3d 424, 2002-Ohio-4743, 775 N.E.2d 

818, ¶ 16. 

{¶ 10} As aggravating factors, the panel and board found that respondent 

had a prior disciplinary record, had engaged in a pattern of misconduct involving 

multiple offenses, was initially uncooperative with the disciplinary process and 

was slow to produce requested materials, harmed several clients, and failed to 

make prompt restitution. See BCGD Proc.Reg. 10(B)(1)(a), (c), (d), (e), (h), and 

(i). Mitigating factors recognized by the panel and board include the absence of a 

dishonest or selfish motive and respondent’s eventual full and free disclosure to 

the board and cooperative attitude toward the proceedings. See BCGD Proc.Reg. 

10(B)(2)(b) and (d). Although the panel and board also found as mitigating 

factors that respondent had been dealing with a number of significant stressors, 

including a divorce, financial problems, lack of health insurance, and a major 

depressive disorder, they refused to allow his mental disability as a mitigating 

factor because respondent did not provide a prognosis from a qualified health-care 

professional that he is able to return to the competent, ethical, professional 

practice of law. See BCGD Proc.Reg. 10(B)(2)(g). 

{¶ 11} Citing respondent’s neglect of client matters, failure to cooperate 

in his investigation, and long-standing depression, relator recommended that 

respondent be indefinitely suspended from the practice of law. Respondent 

argued in favor of a six-month suspension. The panel and board, however, 

recommended that respondent be suspended for two years with the second year 

stayed on the conditions that he establish by clear and convincing evidence all the 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO

6 

requirements for reinstatement under Gov.Bar R. V(10)(C) through (G), that he 

refrain from further violation of the Rules of Professional Conduct, that he make 

restitution to the clients discussed in count three, and that he pay all costs assessed 

against him in this matter. 

{¶ 12} In making this recommendation, the panel expressed concern 

regarding respondent’s depression, which was first diagnosed in 2006, and its 

treatment. Respondent submitted a report from Donald J. Tosi, Ph.D., diagnosing 

him with severe, single-episode, major depressive disorder and stating that the 

disorder was causally connected to his misconduct. Dr. Tosi stated that he 

believes that respondent needs at least six to 12 months of psychological and 

psychiatric treatment to address his depression, but he did not state that he would 

be providing that treatment – indeed, his letterhead describes him as an 

independent psychological examiner and consultant rather than as a clinical 

psychologist. Moreover, he does not offer any prognosis whether respondent will 

be able to return to the competent, ethical, and professional practice of law at the 

completion of the recommended treatment. 

{¶ 13} Respondent had terminated treatment with two other mental-health 

professionals by 2008, and he met with Dr. Tosi just one-and-a-half months 

before his May 2010 disciplinary hearing. Respondent testified that he stopped 

meeting with his first mental-health professional when OLAP referred him to 

someone else. When he “didn’t feel comfortable with [the second doctor],” he 

also stopped seeing him, but he did not seek a second referral from OLAP. Thus, 

the timing and nature of Dr. Tosi’s involvement in this case led the panel to 

believe that he was a “hired gun” brought in to influence the panel to minimize 

respondent’s sanction. 

{¶ 14} We have consistently recognized that neglect of an entrusted legal 

matter coupled with a failure to cooperate in the ensuing disciplinary investigation 

warrants an indefinite suspension. See, e.g., Cleveland Metro. Bar Assn. v. 
January Term, 2011 

7

Gottehrer, 124 Ohio St.3d 519, 2010-Ohio-929, 924 N.E.2d 825, ¶ 16; 

Disciplinary Counsel v. Hoff, 124 Ohio St.3d 269, 2010-Ohio-136, 921 N.E.2d 

636, ¶ 10; and Cleveland Bar Assn. v. Davis, 121 Ohio St.3d 337, 2009-Ohio-764, 

904 N.E.2d 517, ¶ 17. We have also imposed indefinite suspensions on attorneys 

who suffered from mental illness or substance abuse but who failed to present 

sufficient evidence to establish that their condition qualified as a mitigating factor 

pursuant to BCGD Proc.Reg. 10(B)(2)(g)(i) through (iv). See Disciplinary 

Counsel v. Ridenbaugh, 122 Ohio St.3d 583, 2009-Ohio-4091, 914 N.E.2d 443; 

Disciplinary Counsel v. Wolanin, 121 Ohio St.3d 390, 2009-Ohio-1393, 904 

N.E.2d 879; and Disciplinary Counsel v. Young, 102 Ohio St.3d 113, 2004-Ohio1809, 807 N.E.2d 317. This sanction serves to protect the public while leaving 

open the possibility that with proper rehabilitation, the sanctioned attorney might 

one day be able to resume the competent, ethical, and professional practice of law. 

{¶ 15} In this case, respondent engaged in the practice of law while his 

license was under a registration suspension, neglected legal matters to the 

detriment of his clients, and failed initially to cooperate in the ensuing 

disciplinary investigations. Although respondent eventually stipulated to his 

misconduct and corresponding ethical violations, the evidence demonstrates that 

he has suffered from major depression since 2006 and, despite having received 

some treatment, that the depression is not under control. Therefore, we conclude 

that an indefinite suspension is necessary to ensure that respondent receives 

appropriate treatment for his depression and that he is capable of resuming the 

competent, ethical, and professional practice of law. 

{¶ 16} Accordingly, we indefinitely suspend respondent from the practice 

of law and condition any future reinstatement on the submission of proof that 

respondent has participated in OLAP, has obtained treatment for his depression, 

has fulfilled all follow-up care and reporting requirements imposed by OLAP and 

his treating professionals, has made restitution to the clients discussed in count 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO

8 

three, and has paid the costs of this proceeding. Upon petitioning for 

reinstatement, respondent shall also be required to submit testimony from a 

qualified mental-health professional to demonstrate that he is capable of returning 

to the competent, ethical, and professional practice of law. Costs are taxed to 

respondent. 

Judgment accordingly. 

 O’CONNOR, C.J., and LUNDBERG STRATTON, O’DONNELL, LANZINGER,

CUPP, and MCGEE BROWN, JJ., concur. 

 PFEIFER, J., dissents and would suspend the respondent for two years, with 

one year stayed. 

__________________ 

Jeffrey D. Fortkamp, Robert J. Morje, Bruce A. Campbell, Bar Counsel, 

and A. Alysha Clous, Assistant Bar Counsel, for relator. 

James D. Gilbert, for respondent. 

______________________