Allen Cty. Bar Assn. v. Sabol - Ohio Supreme Court Opinion - Ohio Supreme Court Decision

	ROMINGER LEGAL
		Ohio Court Cases and Opinions - Ohio Legal Research
					Need Legal Help?
					Need Legal Help?
LEGAL RESEARCH CENTER
LEGAL RESEARCH CENTER			LEGAL HEADLINES - CASE LAW - LEGAL FORMS	NOT FINDING WHAT YOU NEED? -RESEARCH

This court case was taken from the web sites of the Ohio Courts. Search our site for more cases - CLICK HERE

LEGAL RESEARCH

COURT REPORTERS

PRIVATE INVESTIGATORS

PROCESS SERVERS

DOCUMENT RETRIEVERS

EXPERT WITNESSES

Find a Private Investigator

Find an Expert Witness

Find a Process Server

Case Law - save on Lexis / WestLaw.

Legal News - Legal Headlines

ALLEN COUNTY BAR ASSOCIATION V. SABOL.
[Cite as Allen Cty. Bar Assn. v. Sabol (1997), ___ Ohio St.3d ___.]
Attorneys at law -- Misconduct -- Public reprimand -- Failing to seek
lawful objectives of a client -- Failing to carry out contract of
employment.

(No. 97-807 -- Submitted June 11, 1997 -- Decided September 24, 1997.)

ON CERTIFIED REPORT by the Board of Commissioners on Grievances and
Discipline of the Supreme Court, No. 96-27.

On April 15, 1996, relator, Allen County Bar Association, filed a complaint
alleging that respondent, John A. Sabol of Lima, Ohio, Attorney Registration No.
0019637, violated several Disciplinary Rules by dismissing a personal injury case
with prejudice. After respondent filed his answer and the parties filed agreed
stipulations and exhibits, a panel of the Board of Commissioners on Grievances
and Discipline of the Supreme Court ("board") found the following facts.

Respondent agreed to represent Kathy Thompson and her minor daughter,
Bri Thompson ("Thompsons"), in a personal injury case arising out of an
automobile accident which occurred on October 4, 1989, for a contingent fee of
one third of the recovery.

On October 3, 1991, respondent filed a complaint in common pleas court for
Kathy Thompson and Bri Thompson based upon the accident. On March 16,
1992, he dismissed the complaint without prejudice and notified the Thompsons
that he was doing so because their treating physician had declined to cooperate.
At that time respondent also notified the Thompsons that they had one year from
the date of the dismissal to refile the case or lose their rights against the defendant.

Respondent asserts that the Thompsons agreed to place $2,000 in trust for
the purpose of paying the costs of litigation, including taking depositions, but the
Thompsons never delivered this money to respondent.

On March 15, 1993, to protect the statutory rights of Kathy and Bri
Thompson, respondent refiled the personal injury complaint within one year of the
previous dismissal, and once again requested that the Thompsons either place
$2,000 in trust for expenses or find another attorney. On January 14, 1994
respondent dismissed the complaint because (1) Kathy Thompson and her
husband, John, had filed for bankruptcy and any recovery over the $5,000
exemption claimed for the personal injury case would have to be "reported" to
their trustee, and (2) the Thompsons refused to place $2,000 in escrow for
litigation expenses as respondent had requested and also refused to find other
counsel. Respondent alleged that he had informed the Thompsons that if the
money were not placed in trust, their case would be dismissed.

The panel concluded that respondent violated DR 7-101(A)(1) (failing to
seek the lawful objectives of a client) and 7-101(A)(2) (failing to carry out a
contract of employment) because he inappropriately dismissed Kathy Thompson's
personal injury case with prejudice and Bri Thompson's case without prejudice.
The panel suggested that an appropriate alternative would have been to notify the
trial court of the problem and to move to withdraw as counsel of record. The
panel recommended that respondent receive a public reprimand in view of
respondent's lack of previous disciplinary problems, his reputation as competent
counsel, and the fact that Bri Thompson released him from any claims she might
have as a result of the dismissal. The board adopted the findings, conclusions, and
recommendation of the panel.
__________________

2

Jerry M. Johnson and James E. Meredith, for relator.

John A. Sabol, pro se.
__________________

Per Curiam. As a result of an automobile accident on October 4, 1989,
Kathy and Bri Thompson engaged respondent to represent them in pursuing their
personal injury claims. On June 6, 1990, Kathy Thompson filed a bankruptcy
petition and consequently her interest in her personal injury claim was limited to
her claimed exemption. Despite the limitation on Kathy Thompson's recovery and
despite the fact that the Thompsons failed to advance the requested costs and
expenses, once having filed the case, respondent should not have taken unilateral
action to dismiss it. Instead, respondent should have asked the trial court for
permission to withdraw as counsel. We therefore adopt the findings, conclusions,
and recommendations of the board, and respondent is hereby publicly
reprimanded.

Costs are taxed to respondent.
Judgment accordingly.

MOYER, C.J., DOUGLAS, RESNICK, F.E. SWEENEY, PFEIFER, COOK and
LUNDBERG STRATTON, JJ., concur.

3