Akron Bar Assn. v. DeLoach

[Cite as Akron Bar Assn. v. DeLoach, 133 Ohio St.3d 329, 2012-Ohio-4629.]

AKRON BAR ASSOCIATION v. DELOACH.

[Cite as Akron Bar Assn. v. DeLoach, 133 Ohio St.3d 329, 2012-Ohio-4629.]

Attorneys—Misconduct—Failure to notify clients of lack of malpractice

insurance—Public reprimand.

(No. 2012-0688—Submitted June 6, 2012—Decided October 10, 2012.)

ON CERTIFIED REPORT by the Board of Commissioners on Grievances and

Discipline of the Supreme Court, No. 11-085.

__________________

Per Curiam.

{¶ 1} Respondent, Jana Bassinger DeLoach of Akron, Ohio, Attorney

Registration No. 0071743, was admitted to the practice of law in Ohio in 1999. In

2011, we suspended DeLoach’s license to practice law, stayed the suspension, and

imposed a two-year probation pursuant to Gov.Bar R. V(9). Akron Bar Assn. v.

DeLoach, 130 Ohio St.3d 153, 2011-Ohio-4201, 956 N.E.2d 811.

{¶ 2} In October 2011, less than two months after we imposed discipline

on DeLoach, relator, Akron Bar Association, filed a complaint alleging that when

representing two clients, DeLoach violated Prof.Cond.R. 1.4(c) (requiring a

lawyer to give clients written notice if the lawyer does not maintain professional-

liability insurance and to have clients sign the notice). The parties submitted

stipulations of fact and misconduct, and a panel of the Board of Commissioners

on Grievances and Discipline conducted a hearing to determine the appropriate

sanction for the misconduct. The board accepted the parties’ agreed stipulations

and the panel’s recommendation that we publicly reprimand DeLoach for her

conduct. We adopt the board’s findings of fact and misconduct and hereby

publicly reprimand DeLoach for violating Prof.Cond.R. 1.4(c).

SUPREME COURT OF OHIO

Misconduct

{¶ 3} The stipulated facts of this case and DeLoach’s hearing testimony

establish that in January 2011, members of the Akron Bar Association’s certified

grievance committee discovered the malpractice-insurance violations while

interviewing DeLoach about two other grievances filed against her. DeLoach

advised the committee members that she did not carry liability insurance and that

she had not informed her clients in writing or had them sign any acknowledgment

of that fact. The committee voted to dismiss the underlying grievances. We

accept the findings of misconduct as stipulated by the parties and as found by the

panel and adopted by the board.

Aggravating and Mitigating Factors

{¶ 4} The board found one aggravating factor: DeLoach has been

previously disciplined. See BCGD Proc.Reg. 10(B)(1)(a). By contrast, the board

noted substantial mitigation. Before the panel, DeLoach testified to her

dedication to her clients, most of whom are indigent criminal defendants seeking

postconviction relief, a unique specialty in Akron. Two character witnesses, a

colleague and the mother of one of her clients, testified to her diligence, passion,

and good character. Both echoed DeLoach’s assertion that she pursues justice for

her clients regardless of their ability to pay her. See BCGD Proc.Reg.

10(B)(2)(b), (d), and (e). The panel and board found that this mitigation far

outweighed the one aggravating factor.

Sanction

{¶ 5} When imposing sanctions for attorney misconduct, we consider all

relevant factors, including the duties violated by the lawyer in question and the

sanctions imposed in similar cases. Stark Cty. Bar Assn. v. Buttacavoli, 96 Ohio

St.3d 424, 2002-Ohio-4743, 775 N.E.2d 818, ¶ 16. The Akron Bar Association

made no recommendation as to sanction, and DeLoach seeks only to continue

practicing law.

2

January Term, 2012

{¶ 6} The board recommends a public reprimand because DeLoach’s

earlier probation continues, so DeLoach is already working with a monitor to

improve the organization and integrity of her practice. We must keep in mind that

“our primary purpose in imposing disciplinary sanctions is not to punish the

offender but to protect the public.” Toledo Bar Assn. v. Scott, 129 Ohio St.3d

479, 2011-Ohio-4185, 953 N.E.2d 831, ¶ 16. A public reprimand, in addition to

DeLoach’s stayed suspension and monitored probation, is consistent with the

purpose of the disciplinary system.

{¶ 7} As the board noted, case law also supports a public reprimand.

The board cites Cincinnati Bar Assn. v. Trainor, 110 Ohio St.3d 141, 2006-Ohio-

3825, 851 N.E.2d 505, ¶ 9, for the conclusion that a lawyer’s failure to notify

clients that he or she lacks malpractice insurance warrants a public reprimand.

We publicly reprimanded Trainor even though he had previously committed

professional misconduct. Id. at ¶ 5.

{¶ 8} Having weighed the aggravating and mitigating factors in this case

and having considered the sanction previously imposed for the same misconduct,

we adopt the board’s recommended sanction of a public reprimand. We agree

that DeLoach failed to properly notify her clients that she had no malpractice

insurance in violation of Prof.Cond.R. 1.4(c) and that a public reprimand is

warranted. DeLoach is hereby publicly reprimanded. Costs are taxed to DeLoach.

Judgment accordingly.

O’CONNOR, C.J., and PFEIFER, LUNDBERG STRATTON, O’DONNELL,

LANZINGER, CUPP, and MCGEE BROWN, JJ., concur.

__________________

Burdon & Merlitti and Nathan A. Ray; and Roetzel & Andress, L.P.A.,

and Steven Cox, for relator.

Jana DeLoach, pro se.

______________________

3