Disciplinary Counsel v. Johnson

[Cite as Disciplinary Counsel v. Johnson, 122 Ohio St.3d 293, 2009-Ohio-3501.]

DISCIPLINARY COUNSEL v. JOHNSON.

[Cite as Disciplinary Counsel v. Johnson,

122 Ohio St.3d 293, 2009-Ohio-3501.]

Attorneys — Misconduct — Conduct involving dishonesty — Engaging in conduct

that prejudices the administration of justice — Neglecting a client’s legal

matters — Conduct that adversely reflects on lawyer’s fitness to practice

law — Failure to seek the lawful objectives of a client — License

suspension.

(No. 2009-0398 — Submitted April 8, 2009 — Decided July 23, 2009.)

ON CERTIFIED REPORT by the Board of Commissioners on Grievances and

Discipline of the Supreme Court, No. 08-040.

__________________

Per Curiam.

{¶ 1} Respondent, Lisa Lorraine Johnson, Attorney Registration No.

0075867 and registration address in Lewis Center, Ohio, was admitted to the

practice of law in Ohio in 2003.

{¶ 2} The Board of Commissioners on Grievances and Discipline has

recommended that we suspend respondent’s license to practice for one year, but

stay six months of the suspension on probationary conditions, based on findings

that she lied to a client about having settled the client’s personal-injury action.

We accept the board’s findings that respondent committed this professional

misconduct and the recommendation for a one-year suspension, with six months

stayed and probation. Because respondent has implied that depression

contributed to cause her misconduct, we add as a condition for her readmission

that she undergo a mental-health evaluation and produce a report to establish her

mental fitness to return to the competent, ethical, and professional practice of law.

SUPREME COURT OF OHIO

{¶ 3} Relator, Disciplinary Counsel, charged respondent in a single-

count complaint with violating four Disciplinary Rules of the former Code of

Professional Responsibility. Respondent was served the complaint but did not

answer, and relator moved for default under Gov.Bar R. V(6)(F). A master

commissioner appointed by the board granted the motion, making findings of fact,

conclusions of law, and a recommendation for the one-year suspension and six-

month stay with probation. The board adopted the master commissioner’s

findings of misconduct and recommendation.

Misconduct

{¶ 4} Lorene G. Dowell retained respondent in December 2004 to

recover damages for injuries Dowell sustained in a November 2004 automobile

accident. Dowell agreed to pay respondent 33 percent of any amount recovered on

her behalf. According to deposition testimony, respondent then began contacting

the tortfeasor’s insurance carrier to inquire about settling the claim. The insurer

was fairly uncooperative, and the case never settled.

{¶ 5} Apart from having fruitless communications with the insurance

carrier, obtaining medical records, and towing away Dowell’s vehicle after the

accident, respondent did nothing on her client’s case. She nevertheless assured

Dowell when asked that the “legal matter was moving forward.” And in the

spring of 2006, respondent falsely told Dowell that the case was going to be

resolved, that she expected to receive money soon, and that Dowell would have

her money “by Mothers’ Day.” Respondent testified that she intended to pay

Dowell with funds of her own. She never did.

{¶ 6} The two-year statute of limitations for Dowell’s action lapsed,

leaving Dowell with no remedy against the tortfeasor. Respondent afterward

refused to meet with Dowell and stopped communicating with her completely.

Although respondent had professional malpractice insurance, she did not report

2

January Term, 2009

the potential claim to her carrier, and it is not evident from the record whether

Dowell ever pursued that relief.

{¶ 7} Because respondent falsely advised that her client’s case was being

settled, the board found her in violation of DR l-102(A)(4) (a lawyer shall not

engage in conduct involving dishonesty, fraud, deceit, or misrepresentation), l-

102(A)(5) (a lawyer shall not engage in conduct that is prejudicial to the

administration of justice), 1-102(A)(6) (a lawyer shall not engage in any other

conduct that adversely reflects upon the lawyer’s fitness to practice law), and 6-

101(A)(3) (a lawyer shall not neglect an entrusted legal matter). We accept these

findings of misconduct.

Sanction

{¶ 8} Having found that respondent violated the cited duties to her client,

the board weighed the aggravating and mitigating factors of respondent’s case and

reviewed sanctions imposed in similar cases.

{¶ 9} With regard to mitigation, we agree with the board’s findings that

respondent, who registered as inactive in November 2007 and has not practiced

since, had no prior disciplinary record. See Section 10(B)(2)(a) of the Rules and

Regulations Governing Procedure on Complaints and Hearings Before the Board

of Commissioners on Grievances and Discipline (“BCGD Proc.Reg.”).

Moreover, though the record does not contain evidence to establish the mitigating

effect of mental disability under BCGD Proc.Reg. 10(B)(2)(g), respondent

asserted that she has been deeply depressed because of the death of a close

relative.

{¶ 10} The board relied on Toledo Bar Assn. v. Hickman, 107 Ohio St.3d

296, 2005-Ohio-6513, 839 N.E.2d 24; Disciplinary Counsel v. Keller, 110 Ohio

St.3d 240, 2006-Ohio-4354, 852 N.E.2d 1195; and Disciplinary Counsel v.

Stollings, 111 Ohio St.3d 155, 2006-Ohio-5345, 855 N.E.2d 479, as precedent for

3

SUPREME COURT OF OHIO

recommending a one-year suspension with six months stayed on probationary

conditions, explaining:

{¶ 11} “In Hickman, * * * Respondent voluntarily dismissed a personal

injury claim without the client’s knowledge and continued to represent that the

case was still pending. When the client died, Hickman failed to file a wrongful

death action before expiration of the statute [of limitations] and continued to

misrepresent to the beneficiaries of that wrongful death claim that he had filed the

case and that an expert had been retained to review the same. Hickman was

suspended for one year with six months stayed.

{¶ 12} “In Keller, * * * Keller falsely advised the client that he had

received a $30,000.00 settlement offer which Keller intended to pay with his own

funds. The client refused the offer and obtained new counsel who learned that the

claim had not been filed. Keller was suspended for two years with eighteen (18)

months stayed.

{¶ 13} “In Stollings, * * * the Respondent deceived the client regarding

the status of the case, leading the client to believe that the case had been settled,

despite the fact that it had been dismissed by the Court. Stollings was suspended

for six months.”

{¶ 14} We also find these cases to be similar and accept the board’s

recommendation. Respondent is therefore suspended from the practice of law in

Ohio for one year; however, the last six months of the suspension are stayed on

the condition that respondent successfully complete a six-month probation in

accordance with Gov.Bar R. V(9). To be readmitted to practice, respondent must

also undergo a mental-health evaluation and produce a report to establish her

mental fitness to return to the competent, ethical, and professional practice of law.

If respondent violates the condition of the stay, the stay will be lifted, and

respondent will serve the one-year suspension.

{¶ 15} Costs are taxed to respondent.

4

January Term, 2009

Judgment accordingly.

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

O’DONNELL, LANZINGER, and CUPP, JJ., concur.

__________________

Jonathan E. Coughlan, Disciplinary Counsel, and Stacy Solochek

Beckman, Assistant Disciplinary Counsel, for relator.

______________________

5