Columbus Bar Assn. v. Ginther - 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 Columbus Bar Assn. v. Ginther, 98 Ohio St.3d 345, 2003-Ohio-1010.]

COLUMBUS BAR ASSOCIATION v. GINTHER.
[Cite as Columbus Bar Assn. v. Ginther, 98 Ohio St.3d 345, 2003-Ohio-1010.]
Attorneys at law -- Misconduct -- Six-month suspension with sanction stayed on
conditions -- Engaging in conduct adversely reflecting on fitness to
practice law -- Failing to withdraw from employment when discharged
-- Handling legal matter without adequate preparation -- Neglect of an
entrusted legal matter -- Failing to seek client's lawful objectives --
Failing to carry out contract of employment -- Intentionally prejudicing
or damaging client's interests.
(No. 2002-1780 -- Submitted January 8, 2003 -- Decided March 19, 2003.)
ON CERTIFIED REPORT by the Board of Commissioners on Grievances and
Discipline of the Supreme Court, No. 01-20.
__________________

Per Curiam.
{¶1} On February 5, 2001, relator, Columbus Bar Association, filed a
complaint charging respondent, Jeffrey David Ginther of Columbus, Ohio,
Attorney Registration No. 0022665, with violations of the Code of Professional
Responsibility. The parties waived a hearing, and a panel of the Board of
Commissioners on Grievances and Discipline considered the matter on the
parties' agreed stipulations and recommended sanction. The panel made the
following findings.
{¶2} In July 1998, a client retained respondent to help him obtain a
professional counselor license from the Ohio Counselor and Social Worker Board
("OCSWB"). In December of that year, OCSWB heard the client's application
for the license on respondent's request, but the hearing officer recommended that
the application be denied. Respondent objected to this recommendation in

SUPREME COURT OF OHIO
writing, reserving the right to object in greater detail when the hearing transcript
became available. However, respondent did not acquire a copy of the transcript
or file additional objections, and OCSWB adopted the hearing officer's
recommendation to deny the client's license.
{¶3} In April 1999, the client wrote to respondent with questions
concerning procedure and the feasibility of an appeal. The client explicitly
advised respondent that he did not want to spend more in fees or costs if
respondent considered an appeal to be futile. In May 1999, respondent appealed
OCSWB's decision to a common pleas court but subsequently missed a filing
deadline for his brief. Although OCSWB had stipulated to a two-week extension
for respondent to file his brief, respondent failed to file the stipulation. OCSWB
moved for summary judgment. Respondent did not file a response to the motion
after he told his client that he would.
{¶4} In January 2000, the court granted OCSWB's motion and affirmed
the OCSWB's denial of the client's license. Respondent filed a motion for relief
from the judgment based on a variety of factors, including his own health
problems. The motion for relief was denied in August 2000.
{¶5} Respondent's client paid him a total of $2,130, and in February
and March 2000, the client sent respondent letters discharging him and requesting
a complete refund. Respondent did not formally withdraw as his client's counsel
until after the court overruled his motion for relief from judgment, despite his
having been discharged months before. Moreover, respondent failed to keep his
client informed of the status of his case and failed to promptly respond to the
client's requests for information. Later, while this disciplinary proceeding was
pending, respondent agreed to refund $800 to the client, claiming that he had
earned the remaining $1,330.
{¶6} The parties stipulated and the panel found that respondent had
violated DR 1-102(A)(6) (engaging in conduct that adversely reflects on the
2

January Term, 2003
attorney's fitness to practice law), 2-110(B)(4) (failure to withdraw from
employment when discharged), 6-101(A)(2) and (3) (lack of adequate preparation
and neglect of an entrusted legal matter), and 7-101(A)(1), (2), and (3) (failure to
seek client's lawful objectives, failure to carry out a contract of employment for
professional services, and intentionally prejudicing or damaging a client's
interests). In recommending a sanction for this misconduct, the panel considered
the aggravating circumstances, also stipulated by the parties, that respondent had
repeatedly failed to timely attend to his client's interests, that he had harmed his
client's interests, and that he had not promptly returned unearned fees. The panel
also considered the stipulated mitigating circumstances that respondent had no
prior disciplinary record, had accounted for and returned the unearned portion of
his client's money, had cooperated in the disciplinary proceedings, and had
presented testimonials as to his integrity and professional competence. The panel
also found of particular mitigating significance the fact that respondent had been
receiving treatment since January 2001 for his problems with alcohol and
depression, both of which had contributed to his misconduct.
{¶7} The panel accepted the sanction to which the parties also
stipulated--a six-month suspension, with the entire six months stayed, on
conditions. Specifically, the panel recommended that the stay be conditioned on
the following: (a) that respondent comply with the rigorous terms of his contract
with the Ohio Lawyers Assistance Program until September 3, 2004,1 (b) that
respondent refrain from further acts of misconduct, and (c) that respondent pay
any costs assessed against him. The board adopted the panel's findings of
misconduct and recommended sanction.
{¶8} On review, we agree that respondent violated DR 1-102(A)(6), 2-
110(B)(4), 6-101(A)(2) and (3), and 7-101(A)(1), (2), and (3). We also agree that

1 The stipulations were executed on September 3, 2002, and the parties agreed upon respondent's
compliance for two years from that date.
3

SUPREME COURT OF OHIO
a six-month suspension, stayed on conditions, is appropriate. Accordingly,
respondent is hereby suspended from the practice of law in Ohio for six months,
but this sanction is stayed as long as respondent complies with the conditions
recommended by the board. If respondent fails to meet these conditions, the stay
shall be lifted and respondent shall serve six months of actual suspension from the
practice of law. Costs are taxed to respondent.
Judgment accordingly.

MOYER, C.J., RESNICK, F.E. SWEENEY, PFEIFER, COOK, LUNDBERG
STRATTON and O'CONNOR, JJ., concur.
__________________

Jerry Silverstain; Bruce A. Campbell, Bar Counsel, and Jill M. Snitcher
McQuain, Assistant Bar Counsel, for relator.

Charles J. Kettlewell and Charles W. Kettlewell, for respondent.
__________________
4