Summary
The Supreme Court of Ohio held that disciplinary counsel proved by clear and convincing evidence that Thomas John Simon violated professional-conduct rules by failing to communicate with two clients, failing to obtain informed consent, neglecting a client matter, and failing to disclose that he lacked professional liability insurance. The court imposed a six-month suspension, fully stayed on the condition that Simon commit no further misconduct, and taxed costs to him.
Topics
Practice areas
Questions Presented
- Whether Disciplinary Counsel proved by clear and convincing evidence that Simon failed to obtain informed client consent and failed to keep Hubbard reasonably informed.
- Whether Disciplinary Counsel proved that Simon failed to act with reasonable diligence and failed to keep Grippi informed or obtain his informed consent regarding the handling of dispositive motions and appeal.
- Whether the board's recommended two-year suspension with 18 months stayed was an appropriate sanction for Simon's misconduct.
Holdings
- The record did not weigh heavily against the board's credibility determinations, and clear and convincing evidence established that Simon failed to obtain Hubbard's informed consent before dismissing the complaint and failed to keep Hubbard reasonably informed about the matter.
- Clear and convincing evidence established that Simon failed to act with reasonable diligence, failed to keep Grippi reasonably informed, and failed to obtain Grippi's informed consent before allowing dispositive motions to remain unopposed.
- A six-month suspension from the practice of law, fully stayed on the condition that Simon commit no further misconduct, was the appropriate sanction.
Key quotations
“Having thoroughly reviewed the record, we conclude that relator has proven by clear and convincing evidence that Simon engaged in the charged misconduct.” (¶ 5)
“And for that reason, we ordinarily defer to the panel’s credibility determinations unless the record weighs heavily against those findings.” (¶ 16)
“Therefore, we conclude that the proper sanction for Simon’s misconduct is a six-month suspension, fully stayed on the condition that he commit no further misconduct.” (¶ 33)
Factual background
Simon represented Danny Hubbard in a wrongful-termination action and Louis Grippi in wrongful-termination and related matters. In the Hubbard matter, Simon failed to appear at a pretrial hearing, did not respond to discovery or a motion to compel, and voluntarily dismissed the complaint without obtaining Hubbard's informed consent. In the Grippi matter, Simon failed to respond to dispositive motions, allowed the case to be dismissed with prejudice, failed to inform Grippi of the dismissal, and failed to file an appellate brief. Simon also failed to advise Hubbard that he did not carry professional liability insurance.
Procedural history
Disciplinary Counsel filed an amended complaint alleging misconduct in Simon's representation of two clients. A panel conducted a hearing on stipulated facts, exhibits, and testimony; the board adopted the panel's findings and recommended a two-year suspension with 18 months stayed. The Supreme Court of Ohio upheld the misconduct findings but modified the sanction to a six-month suspension fully stayed on the condition of no further misconduct.