Summary
The Supreme Court of Ohio found that Vincent George Farris neglected a client matter and misrepresented the status of the matter in violation of Ohio's Rules of Professional Conduct. The court imposed a one-year suspension from the practice of law, stayed in its entirety on conditions that Farris satisfy a stipulated malpractice judgment within two years and commit no further misconduct.
Topics
Practice areas
Questions Presented
- Whether the record supported findings that Farris violated Prof.Cond.R. 1.3, 1.4(a)(3), and 8.4(c).
- Whether the unsupported additional alleged rule violation should be dismissed.
- What sanction was appropriate for Farris's neglect and dishonesty in light of the aggravating and mitigating factors.
Holdings
- The court adopted the board's findings that Farris violated Prof.Cond.R. 1.3, 1.4(a)(3), and 8.4(c).
- A one-year suspension from the practice of law, stayed in its entirety on specified conditions, was warranted.
Key quotations
“Dishonest conduct on the part of an attorney generally warrants an actual suspension from the practice of law” (¶ 13)
“the primary purpose of disciplinary sanctions is not to punish the offender, but to protect the public.” (¶ 17)
“Vincent George Farris is hereby suspended from the practice of law in Ohio for one year, with the entire suspension stayed” (¶ 18)
Factual background
Farris represented Euclid Beach, L.P., and its property manager in property-tax matters. He failed to timely file complaints with the Cuyahoga County Board of Revision for tax years 2012 and 2014, implied in an email that the first complaint had been filed, and continued concealing the neglect for approximately a year. Euclid Beach later obtained a $95,000 malpractice judgment against him; by the disciplinary hearing he had paid approximately $40,000 and was making regular monthly payments.
Procedural history
Disciplinary counsel charged Farris with neglecting a client matter and making misrepresentations to conceal that neglect. After a hearing, the Board of Professional Conduct found violations of Prof.Cond.R. 1.3, 1.4(a)(3), and 8.4(c), recommended dismissal of another alleged violation, and recommended a conditionally stayed one-year suspension. The Supreme Court adopted the board's findings and recommendation, dismissed the unsupported alleged violation, and imposed the stayed suspension with conditions.