Columbus Bar Association v. Chodosh

156 Ohio St. 3d 288, 2019-Ohio-765 (Ohio 2019) · Supreme Court of Ohio · March 7, 2019 · No. 2018-1094

Summary

The Supreme Court of Ohio held that Louis Jay Chodosh violated multiple Ohio Rules of Professional Conduct, including rules concerning client communication, fee division, confidentiality, settlement authority, and dishonest conduct. The court imposed a one-year suspension from practice, stayed in its entirety on the conditions that he commit no further misconduct and pay the proceeding’s costs.

Court
Supreme Court of Ohio
Writing for the Court
Per Curiam; Maureen O'Connor, Chief Justice; Maureen O'Connor, C.J.; Maureen O'Connor; Judith L. French, J.; Patrick F. Fischer, J.; Michael P. Donnelly, J.; Melody J. Stewart, J.
Jurisdiction
Ohio
Decision date
March 7, 2019
Docket number
2018-1094
Procedural posture
Attorney-discipline proceeding based on a certified report of the Board of Professional Conduct of the Supreme Court of Ohio. The parties stipulated to facts, violations, aggravating and mitigating factors, and the recommended sanction, subject to the court's review and approval.
Standard of review
The Supreme Court of Ohio independently reviews and determines attorney-discipline violations and the appropriate sanction after considering the board's findings, the ethical duties violated, aggravating and mitigating factors, and sanctions imposed in comparable cases.
Precedential value
Published Ohio Supreme Court disciplinary opinion; precedential as to the court's determination of violations and sanction under the cited professional-conduct rules.
Parties
Columbus Bar Association v. Louis Jay Chodosh
Disposition
other

Topics

administrative lawagency adjudicationjudicial review of agency action

Practice areas

legal ethicsattorney disciplineprofessional responsibility

Questions Presented

  1. Whether Chodosh violated the Ohio Rules of Professional Conduct by failing to communicate with clients and failing to obtain and document required client consent concerning settlement and fee-sharing arrangements.
  2. Whether Chodosh engaged in dishonest, fraudulent, deceitful, or misrepresentative conduct by signing a client's name to legal documents and arranging for a purported signature to be notarized.
  3. Whether Chodosh violated his duty of confidentiality by revealing information concerning Jewell's representation to another attorney without her informed consent.
  4. What sanction was appropriate for Chodosh's multiple professional-conduct violations.

Holdings

  1. Chodosh violated Prof.Cond.R. 1.2(a), 1.4(a)(3), 1.5(c)(2), 1.5(e), and 8.4(c) by failing to abide by Cline's settlement decision, failing to keep her reasonably informed, failing to prepare and obtain a properly executed contingent-fee closing statement, failing to satisfy the requirements for dividing fees with lawyers outside his firm, and engaging in dishonest, fraudulent, deceitful, or misrepresentative conduct.
  2. Chodosh violated Prof.Cond.R. 1.4(a)(3), 1.5(e), and 1.6(a) by failing to reasonably communicate with Jewell, failing to comply with fee-division requirements, and revealing confidential information about her representation without her informed consent.
  3. A one-year suspension from the practice of law, stayed in its entirety on the conditions that Chodosh commit no further misconduct and pay the costs of the proceeding, was the appropriate sanction.

Key quotations

We adopt these findings of fact and agree that Chodosh has violated Prof.Cond.R. 1.2(a), 1.4(a)(3), 1.5(c)(2), 1.5(e), 1.6(a), and 8.4(c). (¶ 25)
Accordingly, Louis Jay Chodosh is suspended from the practice of law in Ohio for one year, with the entire suspension stayed on the conditions that he commit no further misconduct and pay the costs of this proceeding. (¶ 26)

Factual background

Louis Jay Chodosh represented Patricia Cline and Karen Jewell in separate personal-injury matters. In the Cline matter, he failed to obtain or document required client consent concerning settlement and fee sharing, signed Cline's name to settlement documents, and mishandled settlement-distribution documentation and Medicare-lien funds. In the Jewell matter, he transferred the case to another lawyer without Jewell's knowledge or consent, failed to keep her reasonably informed, and disclosed confidential information without her informed consent.

Procedural history

The Columbus Bar Association filed a September 2017 disciplinary complaint alleging misconduct in two personal-injury matters. The parties entered stipulations, disputed one alleged violation, and agreed to dismiss two others. After a hearing, the Board of Professional Conduct found violations and recommended a fully stayed twelve-month suspension. The Supreme Court of Ohio adopted the findings and imposed the recommended sanction.

Court Document

Open PDF
Loading document…