Lake County Bar Association v. Ryan

123 Ohio St. 3d 178, 2009-Ohio-4232 (2009) · Supreme Court of Ohio · August 27, 2009 · No. 2009-0393

Summary

The Supreme Court of Ohio found that Patrick T. Ryan neglected a client's personal-injury claim, failed to diligently pursue the matter, and failed to disclose that he lacked professional-malpractice insurance. The court imposed a two-year suspension, staying the final six months on the condition that Ryan pay restitution determined through mediation.

Court
Supreme Court of Ohio
Writing for the Court
Per curiam; Moyer, C.J.; O'Connor, J.; Cupp, J.; Pfeifer, J.; Stratton, J.; Lundberg Stratton, J.; O'Donnell, J.; Lanzinger, J.
Jurisdiction
Ohio
Decision date
August 27, 2009
Docket number
2009-0393
Procedural posture
Attorney-discipline proceeding on a certified report from the Board of Commissioners on Grievances and Discipline of the Supreme Court of Ohio. The board found misconduct and recommended a two-year suspension with the final six months stayed subject to restitution; neither party objected.
Standard of review
The Supreme Court of Ohio independently reviewed the certified disciplinary report and accepted the board's findings of misconduct and recommended sanction.
Precedential value
Published, precedential opinion of the Supreme Court of Ohio
Parties
Lake County Bar Association v. Patrick T. Ryan
Disposition
other

Topics

insuranceinsurance bad faithremedies

Practice areas

legal ethicsattorney disciplineprofessional responsibilityprofessional-malpractice insurance

Questions Presented

  1. Whether Ryan violated the cited Disciplinary Rules by failing to diligently pursue and adequately prepare the client's personal-injury claim, failing to seek the client's lawful objectives, failing to carry out the professional employment, causing client prejudice, and failing to disclose the absence of professional-liability insurance.
  2. What sanction was appropriate in light of Ryan's misconduct, prior disciplinary record, aggravating and mitigating factors, and the harm to the client.

Holdings

  1. Ryan violated DR 1-104(A), 1-102(A)(5), 1-102(A)(6), 6-101(A)(2), 6-101(A)(3), 7-101(A)(1), 7-101(A)(2), and 7-101(A)(3) by failing to adequately prepare and diligently pursue the client's claim, neglecting the matter, failing to pursue the client's lawful objectives, causing prejudice, and failing to disclose that he lacked professional-liability insurance.
  2. A two-year suspension from the practice of law, with the final six months stayed on the condition that Ryan pay restitution determined through the Lake County Bar Association's mediation process, was the appropriate sanction.

Key quotations

Respondent badly mismanaged his client’s case. He also never advised his client that he carried no malpractice insurance. (¶ 9)
Respondent is therefore suspended from the practice of law in Ohio for two years; however, the last six months of the suspension are stayed on the condition that he pay restitution in the amount determined through relator’s mediation process. (¶ 16)

Factual background

Ryan represented a client injured in an automobile accident and, after refiling her personal-injury action, failed to obtain expert medical reports by discovery deadlines. He failed to comply with a court order, did not appear at the final pretrial hearing, and the court dismissed the action; his effort to reinstate it was unsuccessful. Ryan also failed to inform the client that the action had been dismissed and never advised her that he lacked professional-malpractice insurance.

Procedural history

The Lake County Bar Association charged Ryan with one count of professional misconduct. A board panel conducted a hearing, made findings of fact and conclusions of law, and recommended a two-year suspension with six months stayed on a restitution condition. The board adopted the panel's findings and recommendation, and the Supreme Court of Ohio accepted both.

Court Document

Open PDF
Loading document…