Court Opinion

ID: 9802085
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-31 08:58:14.161482+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:58:33.734820
License: Public Domain

Moyer, C.J.,
dissenting.
{¶ 16} I respectfully dissent from the majority decision in regard to the sanction imposed on respondent. In the course of representing an elderly client, respondent failed to inform the client of her lack of malpractice insurance, did not keep her client fully informed about the case, repeatedly failed to take proper steps to advance her client’s interests, and ignored important deadlines, which caused the client to suffer an adverse judgment.
{¶ 17} The fact that respondent had a busy professional workload and various issues in her personal life during this same time is entitled to minuscule weight in mitigation, and it does not excuse her failure to provide professional services. If she was unable to effectively represent her client, she should have informed the *69client of that fact and sought to withdraw from the case. Instead, she ignored the problem until it was too late; such inattentiveness is not acceptable.
Ellen S. Mandell, Bar Counsel, and Susan M. Weaver, for relator.
Rita R. Johnson, pro se.
{¶ 18} Accordingly, I would impose a stronger sanction than the public reprimand issued by the majority. Respondent’s actions warrant a stayed six-month suspension from the practice of law. See, e.g., Cleveland Bar Assn. v. Ramos, 119 Ohio St.3d 36, 2008-Ohio-3235, 891 N.E.2d 730.
O’Connor, J., concurs in the foregoing opinion.