Disciplinary Counsel v. Schnittke

Summary

The Supreme Court of Ohio held that Steven Powell Schnittke committed professional misconduct by neglecting three appointed criminal appeals, failing to keep clients reasonably informed, and engaging in conduct prejudicial to the administration of justice. The court imposed a six-month suspension, stayed in full on the condition that he commit no further misconduct.

Holdings

1. Schnittke's conduct violated DR 6-101(A)(3), Prof.Cond.R. 1.3, Prof.Cond.R. 1.4(a)(3), Prof.Cond.R. 1.4(a)(4), and Prof.Cond.R. 8.4(d).
2. A six-month suspension from the practice of law, fully stayed on the condition that Schnittke engage in no further misconduct, was the appropriate sanction.

Questions Presented

1. Whether Schnittke's conduct violated the applicable attorney-discipline rules, including rules prohibiting neglect, lack of reasonable diligence, failure to keep clients informed, failure to respond to reasonable requests for information, and conduct prejudicial to the administration of justice.
2. What sanction was appropriate for Schnittke's stipulated misconduct in light of the aggravating and mitigating factors and sanctions imposed in comparable cases.

Disposition

other