Summary
The Supreme Court of Ohio held that attorney Je’Anne Longenhagen violated disciplinary rules by neglecting a client’s probate matter, failing to pursue the client’s lawful objectives and perform the employment agreement, and failing to cooperate with the disciplinary investigation. The court imposed a one-year suspension from the practice of law, with six months stayed on the condition that she commit no further Disciplinary Rule violations, and taxed costs to her.
Topics
Practice areas
Questions Presented
- Whether Longenhagen violated the charged Disciplinary Rules and Gov.Bar R. V(4)(G) by failing to adequately prepare and diligently handle the probate matter, failing to pursue the client's lawful objectives, failing to carry out her employment contract, and failing to cooperate in the disciplinary investigation.
- What sanction was appropriate for the misconduct in light of the absence of a prior disciplinary record and mitigating evidence of severe marital and personal stress.
Holdings
- The court adopted the findings and conclusions that Longenhagen violated DR 6-101(A)(2), DR 6-101(A)(3), DR 7-101(A)(1), DR 7-101(A)(2), and Gov.Bar R. V(4)(G).
- Longenhagen was suspended from the practice of law in Ohio for one year, with six months stayed on the condition that she commit no further Disciplinary Rule violations, and costs were taxed to her.
Key quotations
“Although an indefinite suspension is generally warranted when a pattern of neglecting legal matters is coupled with a failure to cooperate in the ensuing disciplinary investigation, there is no such pattern of neglect related to multiple clients here.” (¶ 8)
Factual background
In January 1996, a client retained Je’Anne Longenhagen to probate her late husband's estate and paid approximately $3,600. After receiving notice in September 1999 that the estate remained unsettled, the client repeatedly attempted to contact Longenhagen, who did not return the calls or complete the matter despite assurances. Longenhagen also failed to cooperate with the subsequent disciplinary investigation and did not answer the disciplinary complaint.
Procedural history
Longenhagen's client filed grievances concerning her failure to complete a probate matter, and Longenhagen failed to cooperate with the resulting disciplinary investigation. Relator filed a disciplinary complaint, to which Longenhagen did not respond. A master commissioner found multiple violations and recommended a one-year suspension with six months stayed; the board adopted that recommendation and certified the matter to the Supreme Court of Ohio, which adopted the board's findings, conclusions, and recommendation.