Summary
The Ohio Supreme Court publicly reprimanded Phillip Douglas Lehmkuhl for filing a defamation action without adequately investigating the identity of the proper defendants, failing to timely amend the complaint after discovering the error, and failing to cooperate in a disciplinary investigation. The court adopted the findings that he violated Ohio Prof.Cond.R. 3.1 and Gov.Bar R. V(4)(G), with costs taxed to him.
Holdings
- Lehmkuhl violated Prof.Cond.R. 3.1 by initiating the defamation action without adequately investigating the identity of the proper defendants and by failing to timely amend the complaint after discovering that Amanda Erb was not a proper defendant.
- Lehmkuhl violated Gov.Bar R. V(4)(G) by failing to assist in the disciplinary investigation, including by failing to respond to letters of inquiry and failing to appear for a subpoenaed deposition.
- A public reprimand was the appropriate sanction for Lehmkuhl's misconduct.
Questions Presented
- Whether Lehmkuhl violated Prof.Cond.R. 3.1 by filing and maintaining a defamation proceeding without adequately investigating and timely correcting the identity of a proper defendant.
- Whether Lehmkuhl violated Gov.Bar R. V(4)(G) by failing to assist in the disciplinary investigation.
- What sanction was appropriate for the established misconduct.
Disposition
other
Cases Cited (4)
- Stark Cty. Bar Assn. v. Buttacavoli, 96 Ohio St. 3d 424, 2002-Ohio-4743, 775 N.E.2d 818, ¶ 16(followed)
- Disciplinary Counsel v. Broeren, 115 Ohio St. 3d 473, 2007-Ohio-5251, 875 N.E.2d 935, ¶ 21(followed)
- Akron Bar Assn. v. Fink, 131 Ohio St. 3d 34, 2011-Ohio-6342, 959 N.E.2d 1045(followed)
- Disciplinary Counsel v. Gallo, 131 Ohio St. 3d 309, 2012-Ohio-758, 964 N.E.2d 1024, ¶¶ 5-6, 20-21(followed)
Cited In (0)
No citing cases on record yet.
Court Document
Open PDFLoading document…