Summary
The Supreme Court of Ohio considers disciplinary violations by an attorney who neglected a client’s predatory-lending matter, failed to communicate, and did not cooperate with the disciplinary investigation. The court imposed a two-year suspension, with six months stayed, conditioned on no further disciplinary violations, a mental-health evaluation, and restitution to specified former clients.
Topics
Practice areas
Questions Presented
- Whether Engel violated the charged Disciplinary Rules and Gov.Bar R. V(4)(G), as established by the parties' stipulations and the board's findings.
- What sanction was appropriate for Engel's misconduct, considering the aggravating and mitigating circumstances.
Holdings
- The court adopted the board's findings of fact and conclusions of law that Engel violated DR 1-102(A)(6), DR 6-101(A)(3), DR 7-101(A)(1), DR 7-101(A)(2), and Gov.Bar R. V(4)(G).
- A two-year suspension from the practice of law, with six months stayed on the condition that Engel commit no further Disciplinary Rule violations, was appropriate, subject to mental-health-evaluation and restitution requirements before reinstatement.
Key quotations
“For his violations of DR 1-102(A)(6), 6 — 101(A)(3), 7-101(A)(l), and 7 — 101 (A)(2) and Gov.Bar R. V(4)(G), respondent is hereby suspended from the practice of law for two years with six months stayed on condition that he commit no further violations of the Disciplinary Rules.” (51)
Factual background
Engel was retained in April 2002 to pursue a predatory-lending claim against a bank and received a $500 nonrefundable fee. After writing to the bank in May 2002, he took no further action, failed to return the client's calls, and initially failed to cooperate with the bar association's investigation. The disciplinary record also reflected a prior public reprimand for neglect, inadequate malpractice-insurance disclosure, and multiple aggravating and mitigating circumstances.
Procedural history
The Dayton Bar Association filed a disciplinary complaint alleging violations of multiple Disciplinary Rules and Gov.Bar R. V(4)(G). A panel found the stipulated violations and recommended an indefinite suspension; the board instead recommended a two-year suspension with the final six months stayed subject to mental-health and restitution conditions. The Supreme Court adopted the board's findings and conclusions and imposed a modified two-year suspension with six months stayed.