Disciplinary Counsel v. Shaver

[Cite as Disciplinary Counsel v. Shaver, 121 Ohio St.3d 393, 2009-Ohio-1385.]

DISCIPLINARY COUNSEL v. SHAVER.

[Cite as Disciplinary Counsel v. Shaver, 121 Ohio St.3d 393, 2009-Ohio-1385.]

Attorneys at law — Misconduct — Revealing information related to

representation of a client — Public reprimand.

(No. 2008-2402 — Submitted February 4, 2009 — Decided April 1, 2009.)

ON CERTIFIED REPORT by the Board of Commissioners on Grievances and

Discipline of the Supreme Court, No. 08-047.

__________________

Per Curiam.

{¶ 1} Respondent, David Brian Shaver of Pickerington, Ohio, Attorney

Registration No. 0036980, was admitted to the practice of law in Ohio in 1986.

The Board of Commissioners on Grievances and Discipline recommends that we

publicly reprimand respondent, based on findings that he failed to properly

dispose of confidential client files and other materials, in violation of the Rules of

Professional Conduct. We agree that respondent committed professional

misconduct as found by the board and that a public reprimand is appropriate.

{¶ 2} Relator, Disciplinary Counsel, charged that respondent had

violated Prof.Cond.R. 1.6(a) (prohibiting, with exceptions not relevant here, a

lawyer from revealing information relating to the representation of a client) and

1.9(c)(2) (prohibiting, with exceptions not relevant here, a lawyer who has

formerly represented a client from revealing information relating to that

representation). A panel of board members considered the case on the parties’

stipulations, found the cited misconduct, and recommended the public reprimand

proposed by the parties. The board adopted the panel’s findings of misconduct

and recommendation.

Misconduct

SUPREME COURT OF OHIO

{¶ 3} At all times relevant to this case, respondent served as the mayor

of Pickerington. In the spring of 2007, respondent moved his law office from a

Columbus Street location to another location in that city. He continued to lease

the garage behind the Columbus Street address, storing an estimated 500 boxes of

records in that space on a month-to-month basis.

{¶ 4} In late June 2007, the owner of the Columbus Street property sold

the garage and advised respondent to remove the records from it. The new owner

and her tenant took possession shortly thereafter and immediately began preparing

the space for their businesses. In early July 2007, respondent brought a crew to

assist him in removing the many boxes. He took some boxes with him, placing

them in a moving truck, but he put some boxes in a nearby dumpster and left

approximately 20 other boxes beside the dumpster.

{¶ 5} The new tenant, who had worked as a paralegal for a law office,

had misgivings about the propriety of respondent’s disposal method. She

examined the contents of several of the boxes left by the dumpster and realized

that they contained client materials including confidential information.

Concerned that those boxes might not be taken away with the others in the

dumpster and that client confidences might be compromised, the tenant and her

husband returned them to the garage later that evening.

{¶ 6} Upon receiving notice that respondent had left not only the boxes

of client records but also furniture and computers in the garage, the former owner

paid to have those items hauled away. Neither of the property owners nor the new

tenant contacted respondent again about his failure to remove all the contents of

the garage. An anonymous tipster, however, contacted a television station about

the incident, and the tip led to television news and newspaper stories.1

1. A television reporter took two boxes of files to her office for the story but has since turned

them over to relator.

2

January Term, 2009

{¶ 7} Respondent admitted that he failed to ensure the proper disposal of

client files, records, and related materials. The panel and board thus found him in

violation of Prof.Cond.R. 1.6(a) and 1.9(c)(2). We accept these findings of

misconduct.

Sanction

{¶ 8} In recommending a sanction for this misconduct, the panel and

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

BCGD Proc.Reg. 10(B). The panel and board found no aggravating factors.

Mitigating factors were respondent’s history of public service and the absence of

a prior disciplinary record. See BCGD Proc.Reg. 10(B)(2)(a).

{¶ 9} We accept the board’s recommendation of a public reprimand.

Respondent is hereby publicly reprimanded for his violations of Prof.Cond.R.

1.6(a) and 1.9(c)(2). Costs are taxed to respondent.

Judgment accordingly.

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

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

__________________

Jonathan E. Coughlan, Disciplinary Counsel, and Robert R. Berger,

Assistant Disciplinary Counsel, for relator.

David W. Poston, for respondent.

______________________

3