Columbus Bar Assn. v. Deffet - 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. Deffet, 98 Ohio St.3d 384, 2003-Ohio-1090.]

COLUMBUS BAR ASSOCIATION v. DEFFET.
[Cite as Columbus Bar Assn. v. Deffet, 98 Ohio St.3d 384, 2003Ohio-1090.]
Attorneys at law -- Misconduct -- Public reprimand -- Engaging in conduct
adversely reflecting on fitness to practice law -- Neglect of an entrusted
legal matter -- Failing to carry out contract of employment -- Advising
an unrepresented person whose interests may be in conflict with the
interests of his client -- Failing to file certificate of registration with
Supreme Court and not updating business address with Office of
Attorney Registration -- Failing to cooperate in investigation of
misconduct.
(No. 2002-1774 -- Submitted January 8, 2003 -- Decided March 26, 2003.)
ON CERTIFIED REPORT by the Board of Commissioners on Grievances and
Discipline of the Supreme Court, No. 02-33.
__________________

Per Curiam.
{¶1} Respondent, Stephen P. Deffet of Dublin, Ohio, Attorney
Registration No. 0039384, was admitted to the Ohio bar in 1987. In a complaint
filed on June 17, 2002, relator, Columbus Bar Association, charged respondent
with various violations of the Code of Professional Responsibility. A panel of the
Board of Commissioners on Grievances and Discipline considered the cause on
the parties' agreement and consent to discipline. See Section 11 of the Rules and
Regulations Governing Procedure on Complaints and Hearings Before the Board
of Commissioners on Grievances and Discipline.
{¶2} According to evidence before the panel, respondent agreed in 2001
to prepare a quitclaim deed for a client who was separated from her husband and
contemplating divorce. The client wanted title of a marital residence transferred

SUPREME COURT OF OHIO
from her husband's name to her name and paid respondent $150 for this service.
Respondent met with the client and her estranged husband and arranged for both
to sign the quitclaim deed.
{¶3} Respondent did not inquire as to whether the husband was
represented by counsel, nor did he advise the husband to consult independent
counsel about the transaction. After the meeting, respondent also failed to
promptly file the quitclaim deed and did not respond to his client's requests for
the refund of her money. When he met with his client and her husband,
respondent had not filed a certificate of registration with the Clerk of the Supreme
Court, and he had not updated his business address with the Office of Attorney
Registration as required by Gov.Bar R. VI(1)(A) and (D).
{¶4} For this conduct, the panel found respondent in violation of DR 1-
102(A)(6) (engaging in conduct adversely reflecting on an attorney's fitness to
practice law), 6-101(A)(3) (neglecting an entrusted legal matter), 7-101(A)(2)
(failing to carry out a contract of employment), and 7-104(A)(2) (advising an
unrepresented person whose interests may be in conflict with the interests of
client), and Gov.Bar R. VI(1)(A) and (D).1 Because his out-of-date registration
impeded relator's efforts to locate respondent and because he did not
conscientiously reply to relator's investigative inquiries, the panel also found a
violation of Gov.Bar R. V(4)(G) (failing to cooperate in an investigation of
misconduct).
{¶5} In recommending a sanction for this misconduct, the panel
considered that respondent had initially been uncooperative during the
disciplinary process. However, respondent had no prior disciplinary record, had
not acted out of dishonesty or selfishness, made some good faith efforts to rectify
the consequences of his misconduct, and was otherwise a reputable practitioner.

1 In addition, the panel noted violations of DR 7-101(A)(1) (failing to seek client's lawful
objectives); however, the parties withdrew this allegation.
2

January Term, 2003
The panel then recommended the sanction recommended by the parties -- a
public reprimand.
{¶6} The board adopted the panel's findings of misconduct and
recommendation. We concur in both decisions. Accordingly, respondent is
hereby publicly reprimanded for his violations of DR 1-102(A)(6), 6-101(A)(3),
7-101(A)(2), and 7-104(A)(2), and Gov.Bar R. VI(1)(A) and (1)(D) and V(4)(G).
Costs are taxed to respondent.
Judgment accordingly.

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

MOYER, C.J., dissents.
__________________

Moyer, C.J., dissenting.
{¶1} I would suspend respondent for six months and stay the
entire suspension.
__________________

Isaac, Brant, Ledman & Teetor, L.L.P., and Joanne S. Peters; Lance
Tibbles, pro hac vice; Bruce A. Campbell, Bar Counsel, and Jill M. Snitcher
McQuain, Assistant Bar Counsel, for relator.

Stephen P. Deffet, pro se.
__________________
3