[Cite as Disciplinary Counsel v. Ohlin, 126 Ohio St.3d 384, 2010-Ohio-3826.] 

DISCIPLINARY COUNSEL v. OHLIN. 

[Cite as Disciplinary Counsel v. Ohlin, 126 Ohio St.3d 384, 2010-Ohio-3826.] 

Attorneys — Misconduct — Failure to provide competent representation — 

Failure to act with reasonable diligence — Failure to inform client of lack 

of malpractice insurance — Neglect of entrusted legal matter — Failure to 

seek client’s lawful objectives — Intentional failure to carry out contract 

of employment — Failure to cooperate with disciplinary investigation — 

Indefinite suspension. 

(No. 2010-0287 — Submitted March 31, 2010 — Decided August 24, 2010.) 

ON CERTIFIED REPORT by the Board of Commissioners on Grievances and 

Discipline of the Supreme Court, No. 09-061. 

__________________ 

Per Curiam. 

{¶ 1} Respondent, Joseph David Ohlin of Warren, Ohio, Attorney 

Registration No. 0031532, was admitted to the practice of law in Ohio in 1985. In 

August 2009, relator, Disciplinary Counsel, filed a complaint charging him with 

violations of the Code of Professional Responsibility, the Ohio Rules of 

Professional Conduct, and Gov.Bar R. V(4)(G) and VI(1)(D). During the 

pendency of this action, we suspended respondent’s license for his failure to 

register for the 2009/2011 attorney-registration biennium. In re Ohlin, 123 Ohio 

St.3d 1475, 2009-Ohio-5786, 915 N.E.2d 1256. We also sanctioned and 

suspended him for failing to comply with the continuing-legal-education 

requirements set forth in Gov.Bar R. X(3). In re Ohlin, 124 Ohio St.3d 1402, 

2009-Ohio-6833, 918 N.E.2d 1010. 

{¶ 2} Although relator’s complaint was served by certified mail on 

August 19, 2009, at the address respondent has registered with the Office of 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO

2

Attorney Services, he failed to file an answer. Relator filed a motion for default 

supported by documentary evidence, including a deposition of respondent 

conducted by relator in May 2009. A master commissioner appointed by the 

board considered the motion for default and prepared a report recommending that 

the board indefinitely suspend respondent. The board adopted the master 

commissioner’s findings that the materials offered in support of the default 

motion were sufficient and that respondent had committed multiple violations of 

the ethical duties incumbent upon Ohio lawyers. 

{¶ 3} In accordance with the master commissioner’s report, the board 

now recommends that we (1) indefinitely suspend respondent from the practice of 

law, (2) condition his reinstatement upon submission of proof that he has resolved 

the problems that he claims contributed to his misconduct, and (3) require him to 

complete one year of monitored probation pursuant to Gov.Bar R. V(9) upon his 

reinstatement. Additionally, the board recommends that we require proof that 

respondent has made full restitution to the client discussed in Count Three. 

{¶ 4} We agree that respondent has committed professional misconduct 

and accept the board’s recommended sanction. 

Misconduct 

Count One 

{¶ 5} In 2002, a client retained respondent’s law firm to represent him in 

a personal-injury case. Another attorney at the firm filed a lawsuit on the client’s 

behalf, and when that attorney left the firm, respondent assumed the 

representation. After respondent failed to reply to the defendants’ motion to 

dismiss or to the defendants’ motion for summary judgment, the trial court 

granted judgment in favor of the defendants. 

{¶ 6} At his deposition, respondent acknowledged that he had received a 

copy of a letter of inquiry from relator forwarding the client’s grievance and that 

he failed to respond. He further admitted that his malpractice insurance had 
January Term, 2010 

3

lapsed and that he had failed to inform the client of this fact. Although he agreed 

to provide additional information regarding his malpractice insurance and the 

client’s complete case file to the relator following the deposition, he failed to do 

so. 

{¶ 7} The board found that respondent’s conduct prior to February 1, 

2007, violated DR 1-104(A) and (B) (requiring a lawyer to inform a client at the 

time of engagement or at any time subsequent to the engagement if the lawyer 

does not maintain professional-liability insurance, and to keep a copy of the 

notice signed by the client for five years after the termination of representation), 

and that his conduct after February 1, 2007, violated Prof.Cond.R. 1.1 (requiring a 

lawyer to provide competent representation to a client), 1.3 (requiring a lawyer to 

act with reasonable diligence and promptness in representing a client), and 1.4(c) 

(requiring a lawyer to inform the client at the time of the engagement or at any 

time subsequent to the engagement if the lawyer does not maintain professionalliability insurance) and Gov.Bar R. V(4)(G) (requiring a lawyer to cooperate with 

a disciplinary investigation). We accept these findings of misconduct. 

Count Two 

{¶ 8} The board found that in April 2005, a second client retained 

respondent and paid him $200 to pursue expungement of a federal criminal 

conviction. A year and a half after he was retained, respondent sought the 

assistance of another attorney. The client met with that attorney and issued a 

check for $400, payable to respondent. Respondent cashed the check and gave 

the money to the other attorney for the work he had performed. The board found 

that respondent failed to obtain the expungement his client sought and that he 

failed to return her telephone calls. At his deposition, respondent agreed to 

provide the client’s file to relator, but failed to do so. 

{¶ 9} Based upon its findings of fact, the board determined that 

respondent’s conduct violated DR 6-101(A)(3) (prohibiting neglect of an 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO

4

entrusted legal matter) and 7-101(A)(1) (prohibiting a lawyer from intentionally 

failing to seek the lawful objectives of his client) and Gov.Bar R. V(4)(G). 

However, the board concluded that the record did not support relator’s allegation 

that respondent’s conduct violated DR 7-101(A)(2) (prohibiting a lawyer from 

intentionally failing to carry out a contract of employment for legal services). 

{¶ 10} While we accept most of the board’s findings of fact, we note that 

the findings regarding the respondent’s intentional failure to obtain the client’s 

goal of expungement and his failure to return client telephone calls are not 

supported by the record. In Dayton Bar Assn. v. Sebree, 104 Ohio St.3d 448, 

2004-Ohio-6560, 820 N.E.2d 318, ¶ 5, we recognized that Gov.Bar R. 

V(6)(F)(1)(b) “requires that a motion for default in a disciplinary proceeding be 

supported by ‘[s]worn or certified documentary prima facie evidence in support of 

the allegations made.’ ” We held that a motion for default in a disciplinary 

proceeding supported only by the summary, conclusory, and hearsay-filled 

affidavits of the relator’s investigator did not satisfy this requirement. Id. at ¶ 9. 

Therefore, we instructed relators in future disciplinary proceedings to provide 

affidavits executed by the grievants themselves to support a default motion. Id. 

{¶ 11} In this case, the relator has submitted only a photocopy of the 

client’s unsworn and uncertified grievance to prove that respondent failed to 

return the client’s phone calls and failed to achieve the object of the 

representation. Because relator has not submitted an affidavit from the grievant, 

or otherwise proven these facts with sworn or certified documentary evidence, we 

reject these factual findings. 

{¶ 12} Nonetheless, the record contains sufficient sworn or certified 

evidence to support the board’s other findings. Therefore, we agree that 

respondent’s conduct violated DR 6-101(A)(3) and 7-101(A)(1) and Gov.Bar R. 

V(4)(G), and we dismiss the alleged violation of DR 7-101(A)(2). 

Count Three 
January Term, 2010 

5

{¶ 13} With regard to Count Three, the board found that a third client 

retained respondent to represent her in a personal-injury action. Respondent 

settled the matter for $10,000 in September 2005. After having his client sign the 

settlement check, he negotiated the check in November 2005. The board found 

that in February 2007, more than a year after the settlement, the client threatened 

to file a grievance if she did not receive her share of the settlement and that 

several weeks later respondent delivered $800 in cash to her home. Although 

respondent had promised to provide the client’s file to relator, he failed to do so. 

{¶ 14} Based upon these factual findings, the board concluded that 

respondent’s conduct before February 1, 2007, violated DR 6-101(A)(3), 7-

101(A)(1), 7-101(A)(2), and 9-102(B)(4) (requiring a lawyer to promptly pay or 

deliver funds and property to which a client is entitled). The board also found that 

his conduct after February 1, 2007, violated Prof.Cond.R. 1.15(a) (requiring a 

lawyer to hold property of clients separate from the lawyer’s own property) and 

1.15(d) (requiring a lawyer to promptly deliver funds or other property that the 

client is entitled to receive) and Gov.Bar R. V(4)(G). 

{¶ 15} We agree that respondent’s delay of more than a year before 

delivering $800 in settlement proceeds to his client violated DR 6-101(A)(3) and 

9-102(B)(4) and Prof.Cond.R. 1.15(d) and that his failure to cooperate in the 

ensuing disciplinary investigation violated Gov.Bar R. V(4)(G). 

{¶ 16} However, the relator has failed to satisfy its burden of proving the 

remaining allegations by clear and convincing evidence. Specifically, we observe 

that the record contains no sworn or certified evidence tending to demonstrate that 

respondent intentionally failed to seek the lawful objectives of the client, 

intentionally failed to carry out a contract of employment, failed to hold the 

client’s funds separate from his own, or failed to deliver all of the settlement 

proceeds that the client was entitled to receive. 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO

6

{¶ 17} On the contrary, respondent’s uncontroverted, sworn deposition 

testimony demonstrates that he (1) filed a complaint on the client’s behalf, (2) 

obtained a $10,000 settlement, (3) deposited the settlement check into his trust 

account, (4) paid the client’s “very high” medical bills from the settlement 

proceeds, (5) distributed more than $800 to the client, and (6) did not use any of 

the money for his own expenses, with the exception of his one-third contingency 

fee. Accordingly, we dismiss the alleged violations of DR 7-101(A)(1) and 

(A)(2) and Prof.Cond.R. 1.15(a). 

Count Four

{¶ 18} Despite having received a letter from relator seeking respondent’s 

reply to a fourth grievance, respondent did not participate in the disciplinary 

investigation of that grievance. Furthermore, at his deposition, respondent agreed 

to provide relator with a copy of the client’s file, but he failed to do so. 

Therefore, the board found, and we agree, that respondent has violated Gov.Bar 

R. V(4)(G). 

Count Five

{¶ 19} With regard to Count Five, the board found that respondent moved 

in the fall of 2008 and failed to provide his new residence and business addresses 

to the Office of Attorney Services. As a result of this failure, respondent did not 

receive several of the letters that relator sent him. At his deposition, respondent 

agreed to update his attorney-registration records, but to date, he has not done so. 

Accordingly, we agree that respondent’s conduct violates Gov.Bar R. VI(1)(D) 

(requiring attorneys to keep the Office of Attorney Services apprised of their 

residence and office addresses). 

Sanction 

{¶ 20} 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 
January Term, 2010 

7

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. 

{¶ 21} As aggravating factors, the board found that respondent had 

committed multiple offenses, failed to cooperate in the disciplinary process, 

refused to acknowledge the wrongful nature of his conduct, and caused harm to 

vulnerable clients. BCGD Proc.Reg. 10(B)(1)(d), (e), (g), and (h). Respondent 

claimed to suffer from alcohol dependence and a mental disability. But the board 

declined to consider those factors in mitigation because respondent did not 

introduce any competent medical evidence to establish either the diagnoses or 

their causal connection to his misconduct. See BCGD Proc.Reg. 10(B)(2)(g)(i) 

and (ii). The board found no other factors weighing in favor of a lesser sanction. 

{¶ 22} We have previously recognized that neglect of an entrusted legal 

matter and failure to cooperate in the ensuing disciplinary investigation generally 

warrant an indefinite suspension. Disciplinary Counsel v. Hoff, 124 Ohio St.3d 

269, 2010-Ohio-136, 921 N.E.2d 636, ¶ 10; Disciplinary Counsel v. Mathewson, 

113 Ohio St.3d 365, 2007-Ohio-2076, 865 N.E.2d 891, ¶ 19. 

{¶ 23} Having reviewed the record, weighed the aggravating and 

mitigating factors, and considered the sanctions imposed for comparable conduct, 

we adopt the board’s recommended sanction of an indefinite suspension. 

{¶ 24} Accordingly, Joseph David Ohlin is indefinitely suspended from 

the practice of law in the state of Ohio. Respondent’s reinstatement is 

conditioned upon his submission of proof that (1) any alcohol dependence and 

mental-health problems have been resolved, (2) he has followed all treatment 

recommendations, including compliance with his existing contract with the Ohio 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO

8

Lawyers Assistance Program, (3) he is able to return to the competent, ethical, 

and professional practice of law, and (4) he has paid the client discussed in Count 

Three all monies that she is entitled to receive from the proceeds of her 

settlement. Furthermore, upon his reinstatement to the practice of law, respondent 

shall complete one year of monitored probation pursuant to Gov.Bar R. V(9). 

Costs are taxed to respondent. 

Judgment accordingly. 

 PFEIFER, LUNDBERG STRATTON, O’CONNOR, O’DONNELL, LANZINGER, and 

CUPP, JJ., concur. 

 BROWN, C.J., not participating. 

__________________ 

Jonathan E. Coughlan, Disciplinary Counsel, and Carol A. Costa, 

Assistant Disciplinary Counsel, for relator. 

______________________