Northwestern Ohio Bar Assn. v. Schnitkey - 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

[Cite as Northwestern Ohio Bar Assn. v. Schnitkey, 94 Ohio St.3d 135, 2002-Ohio-1056.]

NORTHWESTERN OHIO BAR ASSOCIATION v. SCHNITKEY.
[Cite as Northwestern Ohio Bar Assn. v. Schnitkey (2002), 94 Ohio St.3d 135.]
Attorneys at law -- Misconduct -- Public reprimand -- Neglecting entrusted
legal matters.
(No. 01-1262 -- Submitted August 28, 2001 -- Decided January 9, 2002.)
ON CERTIFIED REPORT by the Board of Commissioners on Grievances and
Discipline of the Supreme Court, No. 98-77.
__________________

Per Curiam. During 1996 and 1997, respondent, Mark D. Schnitkey of
Napoleon, Ohio, Attorney Registration No. 0006075, represented several clients
who entrusted him with legal matters that relator, Northwestern Ohio Bar
Association, charges that he neglected. Relator filed a complaint with the Board
of Commissioners on Grievances and Discipline ("board") on November 12,
1998, alleging violations of the Code of Professional Responsibility. After a
hearing before a panel and after review of the panel's recommendation, the board
determined that respondent had committed two violations of DR 6-101(A)(3) (a
lawyer shall not neglect an entrusted legal matter) and recommended that he be
publicly reprimanded for this misconduct. We adopt the board's findings of
misconduct and its recommendation.

Respondent violated DR 6-101(A)(3) by having neglected the interest of
Joann McCabe Reitz and her business partner in recovering money from a failed
restaurant purchase. McCabe Reitz telephoned respondent repeatedly over an
eight-month period to learn the status of her case but had no success. Respondent
ultimately withdrew his representation due to a conflict of interest and
purportedly advised McCabe Reitz of the withdrawal by letter. McCabe Reitz did
not receive it.

SUPREME COURT OF OHIO

Respondent further violated DR 6-101(A)(3) by having neglected the
interest of Michele Aelker in obtaining an order modifying her child's visitation
schedule. Aelker also attempted to reach respondent for months with little
success. And after assuring Aelker that he had moved the court for relief in
August 1997, respondent failed to check on the status of his motion and later
learned that his secretary had never filed it. Respondent's mistake was discovered
only when Aelker called the court in January 1998.

Respondent has been in practice since 1985, and he has never before
received a disciplinary sanction. At the hearing, he accepted complete
responsibility for his misconduct and expressed his sincere remorse that he had let
down his clients. He has already refunded his clients' money and made sure that
no client was financially harmed by his mistakes. Respondent has also changed
his office procedures to ensure that he will not repeat his misconduct, including
having instituted a reliable system for keeping track of court filings and answering
telephone calls. Respondent additionally provided letters from clients and judges
for the board's review, all of whom described their confidence in and respect for
his professional competence.

In light of these mitigating considerations, we agree with the board that
respondent should receive the recommended public reprimand. Respondent is
therefore publicly reprimanded for his violations of DR 6-101(A)(3). Costs are
taxed to respondent.
Judgment accordingly.

MOYER, C.J., DOUGLAS, RESNICK, F.E. SWEENEY, PFEIFER, COOK and
LUNDBERG STRATTON, JJ., concur.
__________________
Michael
W.
Spangler,
for relator.

Mark D. Schnitkey, pro se.
__________________
2