Summary
The Supreme Court of Ohio adopted a consent-to-discipline agreement finding that Samuel Ray Smith II violated multiple Ohio Rules of Professional Conduct, including rules concerning diligence, client funds, candor to a tribunal, and dishonesty. The court suspended Smith from practicing law for 18 months, with the final 12 months stayed on the condition that he commit no further misconduct. Costs were taxed to Smith.
Topics
Practice areas
Questions Presented
- Whether Smith violated the Ohio Rules of Professional Conduct through neglect, mishandling of an advance legal fee, false statements to a tribunal and disciplinary counsel, and dishonest or deceptive conduct.
- Whether the stipulated sanction of an 18-month suspension from the practice of law, with the final 12 months stayed on condition of no further misconduct, was appropriate.
Holdings
- Smith violated Prof.Cond.R. 1.3, 1.15(c), 3.3(a), 8.1(a), and 8.4(c).
- An 18-month suspension from the practice of law, with the final 12 months stayed on the condition that Smith engage in no further misconduct, was appropriate.
Key quotations
“We agree that Smith violated Prof.Cond.R. 1.3, 1.15(c), 3.3(a), 8.1(a), and 8.4(c) and, as stated in the parties’ agreement and as indicated by the cited precedents, that this conduct warrants an 18-month suspension, with the final 12 months stayed.” (¶ 7)
“If Smith violates the condition of the stay, the stay will be lifted and he will serve the entire 18-month suspension.” (¶ 8)
Factual background
Smith was retained to pursue postconviction and appellate relief for Horace K. Vinson Jr. Although Smith received an $1,800 flat fee, he failed to timely file a notice of appeal, falsely represented the date of his retention in a motion for delayed appeal, and failed to file further papers after the appeal was dismissed. In responding to a disciplinary inquiry, Smith submitted purported drafts and billing information that falsely suggested the drafts had been prepared earlier, although metadata showed they were created the day before his response.
Procedural history
Disciplinary counsel charged Smith with professional misconduct. Smith entered into a consent-to-discipline agreement stipulating to most of the alleged facts, rule violations, and an 18-month suspension with the final 12 months stayed. The panel and Board of Professional Conduct recommended adoption of the agreement, and the Supreme Court of Ohio adopted it.