Summary
The Supreme Court of Ohio imposed a 12-month suspension on Mattheuw William Oberholtzer for neglecting two family-law matters, violating a trust-account rule, and failing to cooperate with disciplinary investigations. The court stayed the entire suspension subject to monitored probation, completion of a three-hour law-office-management continuing-legal-education course, and no further misconduct.
Topics
Practice areas
Questions Presented
- Whether Oberholtzer committed the stipulated violations of the Ohio Rules of Professional Conduct and Gov.Bar R. V(4)(G) in connection with his representation of the Wards and Nantwi and his failure to cooperate with the disciplinary investigation.
- Whether the record established a violation of Prof.Cond.R. 1.15(c) for failing to deposit the Wards' advance fee into a client trust account.
- What sanction was appropriate in light of the misconduct and the aggravating and mitigating factors.
Holdings
- Oberholtzer violated Prof.Cond.R. 1.3, 1.4(a)(3), 1.15(c), 8.4(d), and 8.4(h) in representing the Wards, and violated Prof.Cond.R. 8.1(b), 8.4(d), and 8.4(h) and Gov.Bar R. V(4)(G) by failing to cooperate with the disciplinary investigation.
- Oberholtzer violated Prof.Cond.R. 1.3, 1.4(a)(4), 8.4(d), and 8.4(h) in representing Nantwi, and violated Prof.Cond.R. 8.1(b), 8.4(d), and 8.4(h) and Gov.Bar R. V(4)(G) by failing to cooperate with the disciplinary investigation.
- A 12-month suspension from the practice of law, stayed in its entirety on specified conditions, was the appropriate sanction.
Key quotations
“Accordingly, we suspend Mattheuw William Oberholtzer from the practice of law for 12 months, and we stay the suspension on the conditions that he serve a 12-month period of monitored probation, in accordance with Gov.Bar R. V(9), that he complete a three-hour continuing- legal-education course on law- office management within 90 days, and that he commit no further misconduct.” (¶ 36)
Factual background
Oberholtzer represented David and Brenda Ward in a custody and guardianship-related matter but failed for an extended period to file documents they had signed and returned, and he did not deposit their $2,500 advance fee into his client trust account. He represented Carmen Nantwi in a child-support dispute but failed to attend a scheduled evidentiary hearing and did not respond adequately to her communications. Oberholtzer also failed to respond to multiple inquiries from Disciplinary Counsel concerning both matters, although he later cooperated, expressed remorse, refunded Nantwi's fee, and cited serious personal and medical problems.
Procedural history
Disciplinary Counsel filed a complaint charging Oberholtzer with misconduct arising from neglect of two family-law matters and failure to cooperate with the disciplinary investigation. After a hearing, a panel accepted all but the trust-account stipulation and recommended dismissal of that violation; the board adopted the panel's findings and recommended a 12-month suspension stayed on conditions. The Supreme Court of Ohio independently reviewed the record, adopted the stipulated findings and conclusions, found the trust-account violation established, and imposed a stayed 12-month suspension with additional conditions.