Summary
The Supreme Court of Ohio disciplined Guy D. Rutherford for neglecting three client matters, failing to carry out agreed legal services, mishandling unearned client funds, and failing to deliver funds to which clients were entitled. The court imposed a six-month suspension, stayed on conditions including six months of probation, continued treatment for his mental disability, participation in an Ohio Lawyers’ Assistance Program recovery contract, and practice monitoring.
Holdings
- Rutherford violated DR 6-101(A)(3), DR 7-101(A)(2), DR 9-102(A)(2), and DR 9-102(B)(4) through neglect of entrusted matters, failure to perform promised legal services, failure to deposit unearned fees in an identifiable client account, and failure to deliver client funds to which clients were entitled.
- A six-month suspension from the practice of law, stayed during a six-month probation subject to treatment, an Ohio Lawyers' Assistance Program recovery contract, and practice monitoring, was an appropriate sanction.
Questions Presented
- Whether Rutherford violated the specified disciplinary rules by neglecting entrusted legal matters, failing to carry out contracts of employment, mishandling unearned client funds, and failing to deliver client funds.
- What sanction was appropriate for Rutherford's stipulated professional misconduct in light of the aggravating and mitigating circumstances.
Disposition
other
Cases Cited (4)
- Disciplinary Counsel v. Connors, 97 Ohio St. 3d 479, 2002-Ohio-6722, 780 N.E.2d 567, ¶ 16(followed)
- Stark Cty. Bar Assn. v. Buttacavoli, 96 Ohio St. 3d 424, 2002-Ohio-4743, 775 N.E.2d 818, ¶ 16(followed)
- Toledo Bar Assn. v. DiLabbio, 101 Ohio St. 3d 147, 2004-Ohio-338, 803 N.E.2d 389(followed by analogy)
- Columbus Bar Assn. v. Dougherty, 105 Ohio St. 3d 307, 2005-Ohio-1825, 825 N.E.2d 1094, ¶ 20(cited in dissent)
Cited In (0)
No citing cases on record yet.
Court Document
Open PDFLoading document…