Summary
The Supreme Court of Ohio publicly reprimanded Charles Gary Mickens for neglecting a probate matter, failing to keep his client reasonably informed, and failing to disclose that he did not maintain professional liability insurance. The court adopted the stipulated findings and mitigating and aggravating factors, concluding that a public reprimand was appropriate.
Topics
Practice areas
Questions Presented
- Whether Mickens violated the Ohio Rules of Professional Conduct by failing to act with reasonable diligence in a probate matter.
- Whether Mickens violated the Ohio Rules of Professional Conduct by failing to keep his client reasonably informed about significant developments in the matter.
- Whether Mickens violated the Ohio Rules of Professional Conduct by failing to disclose that he did not maintain professional liability insurance.
- What sanction was appropriate for the stipulated misconduct.
Holdings
- Mickens violated Prof.Cond.R. 1.3 by failing to take required actions on behalf of his client, including failing to file a certificate of transfer and failing to complete required probate filings.
- Mickens violated Prof.Cond.R. 1.4(a)(3) by failing to keep Harris reasonably informed about the status and significant developments of the probate matter, including Harris's removal as fiduciary and the disposition of the real property.
- Mickens violated Prof.Cond.R. 1.4(c) by failing to inform his clients in writing that he did not maintain professional liability insurance and by failing to obtain their signed acknowledgments.
- A public reprimand was the appropriate sanction for Mickens's multiple offenses, considering the applicable aggravating and mitigating factors and sanctions imposed in comparable cases.
Key quotations
“Having considered Mickens’s misconduct, the applicable aggravating and mitigating factors, and the sanctions imposed for comparable misconduct, we agree that a public reprimand will adequately protect the public from future harm.” (¶ 15)
“Accordingly, Charles Gary Mickens is publicly reprimanded for the conduct described herein. Costs are taxed to Mickens.” (¶ 16)
Factual background
Mickens represented James Harris in connection with the probate estate of Harris's brother. Mickens failed to ensure that required probate filings were made, failed to inform Harris that Harris had been removed as fiduciary, and failed to file a certificate of transfer for real property bequeathed under the will. Mickens also did not maintain professional liability insurance during his 24 years of practice and failed to provide clients the written notice required by the professional-conduct rules.
Procedural history
Disciplinary counsel filed an amended complaint alleging that Mickens neglected a probate matter, failed to reasonably communicate with the estate fiduciary, and failed to advise clients that he lacked professional liability insurance. The parties stipulated to the facts, misconduct, and aggravating and mitigating factors, and agreed to dismiss an allegation of incompetent representation. The hearing panel and the Board of Professional Conduct adopted the stipulations and recommended a public reprimand, which the Supreme Court accepted.