Summary
The Supreme Court of Ohio publicly reprimanded John Hamilton Flessa for failing to act with reasonable diligence and promptness and for failing to comply promptly with his client’s reasonable requests for information in a dissolution or divorce matter. The court found violations of Ohio Prof.Cond.R. 1.3 and 1.4(a)(4), while other alleged violations were dismissed or not sustained. Mitigating factors included restitution, cooperation, lack of prior discipline, and absence of aggravating factors.
Topics
Practice areas
Questions Presented
- Whether Flessa violated Prof.Cond.R. 1.3 by failing to act with reasonable diligence and promptness in representing the client.
- Whether Flessa violated Prof.Cond.R. 1.4(a)(4) by failing to comply as soon as practicable with the client's reasonable requests for information.
- Whether a public reprimand was the appropriate sanction for the violations in light of the mitigating factors.
Holdings
- Flessa violated Prof.Cond.R. 1.3 by failing to act with reasonable diligence and promptness and violated Prof.Cond.R. 1.4(a)(4) by failing to comply as soon as practicable with the client's reasonable requests for information.
- A public reprimand was the appropriate sanction for Flessa's violations.
Key quotations
“Having considered Flessa’s misconduct and the mitigating factors, we agree that a public reprimand is the proper sanction for his violations.” (¶ 14)
Factual background
Flessa was retained in April 2016 to represent a client concerning child support and the termination of her marriage through dissolution or divorce. The client paid him $3,500, but although she provided the necessary financial records in December 2016, he had not prepared the filing documents by April 2017. After the client terminated the representation, Flessa returned her file but did not initially provide an itemized bill or refund; he ultimately refunded the full $3,500 on March 29, 2018.
Procedural history
The Cincinnati Bar Association charged Flessa with several violations of the Ohio Rules of Professional Conduct arising from his representation of a client seeking dissolution or divorce. The parties stipulated to facts, alleged rule violations, mitigating factors, and a proposed public reprimand. A three-member panel conducted a hearing, made findings and recommendations, and the Board of Professional Conduct adopted them. The Supreme Court of Ohio agreed with the findings and imposed the public reprimand.