Summary
The Supreme Court of Ohio held that attorney Michael G. Florez violated disciplinary rules by neglecting a client's legal matter, failing to carry out professional services, and misleading an investigator through fabricated documents. The court imposed an actual six-month suspension from the practice of law, citing the misconduct and the need for an actual suspension despite mitigating factors.
Topics
Practice areas
Questions Presented
- Whether Florez violated the cited disciplinary rules by failing to carry out his professional-services undertaking, neglecting the client's legal matter, and engaging in dishonesty, fraud, deceit, or misrepresentation.
- Whether an actual six-month suspension, rather than a stayed suspension, was the appropriate sanction given Florez's misconduct, mitigation, and fabrication of documents during the investigation.
Holdings
- Florez violated DR 1-102(A)(4) by engaging in dishonesty, fraud, deceit, or misrepresentation; DR 7-101(A)(2) by failing to carry out a contract for professional services; and DR 6-101(A)(3) by neglecting an entrusted legal matter.
- An actual six-month suspension from the practice of law was appropriate despite Florez's lack of prior discipline, good reputation, remorse, cooperation, and lack of financial harm to the client.
Key quotations
“Nonetheless, respondent fabricated documents and concealed his conduct during an ethical investigation.” (¶ 9)
“Accordingly, respondent is hereby suspended from the practice of law in Ohio for six months.” (¶ 10)
Factual background
Florez accepted $1,500 from a prospective client after undertaking to form an Ohio nonprofit corporation and file an IRS tax-exemption application, but he failed to file the application before the client discharged him. During the ensuing disciplinary investigation, he falsely claimed that he had filed the application in July 2001 and supplied documents purporting to have been sent earlier, although he did not actually send them until March 2002. He admitted misleading the investigator and stipulated to a violation involving dishonesty, while the panel found additional violations for failing to carry out the professional-services contract and neglecting the client's legal matter.
Procedural history
The Cincinnati Bar Association filed a disciplinary complaint against Florez. A hearing panel found violations of three disciplinary rules and recommended a six-month suspension; the Board adopted the findings and recommendation. The Supreme Court of Ohio agreed with the findings and imposed the six-month suspension.