Summary
The Supreme Court of Ohio upheld findings that Richard Barbera violated multiple Ohio Rules of Professional Conduct while representing a client in child-support and custody proceedings. The court imposed an 18-month suspension, with the final 12 months stayed on conditions including $900 in restitution and no further misconduct.
Topics
Practice areas
Questions Presented
- Whether clear and convincing evidence supported the finding that Barbera violated Prof.Cond.R. 1.4(a)(4) by repeatedly failing to respond to his client's reasonable requests for information.
- Whether the evidence supported the remaining findings that Barbera violated Prof.Cond.R. 1.3, 1.4(a)(3), 1.16(d), 3.1, and 8.1(b).
- What sanction was appropriate for Barbera's misconduct in light of the applicable aggravating and mitigating factors and comparable disciplinary cases.
Holdings
- Clear and convincing evidence supported the finding that Barbera violated Prof.Cond.R. 1.4(a)(4) by repeatedly failing to respond to Zanglin's communications and requests for information.
- The court adopted the board's findings that Barbera violated Prof.Cond.R. 1.3, 1.4(a)(3), 1.4(a)(4), 1.16(d), 3.1, and 8.1(b).
- An 18-month suspension from the practice of law, with the final 12 months stayed on the conditions that Barbera pay $900 restitution within 90 days and commit no further misconduct, was appropriate.
Key quotations
“Clear and convincing evidence is an intermediate measure of proof that requires evidence sufficient to produce “ ‘a firm belief or conviction as to the facts sought to be established.’ ”” (¶ 19)
“We have consistently stated that “in determining the appropriate length of the suspension and any attendant conditions, we must recognize that the primary purpose of disciplinary sanctions is not to punish the offender, but to protect the public.”” (¶ 25)
“Accordingly, Richard Barbera is suspended from the practice of law in Ohio for 18 months, with the final 12 months stayed on the conditions that he make restitution of $900 to Dianna Zanglin within 90 days of the date of this order and engage in no further misconduct.” (¶ 40)
Factual background
Barbera represented Dianna Zanglin in child-support and custody proceedings but failed to monitor the court docket, causing both of them to miss a hearing and resulting in Zanglin's arrest and detention. He later failed to attend another hearing, did not adequately communicate with Zanglin, failed to inform her that her appeal had been dismissed, filed an appeal solely to delay the proceedings, and failed to provide her file to new counsel. He also failed to provide substantive responses during the resulting disciplinary investigation.
Procedural history
Disciplinary counsel filed a complaint alleging misconduct arising from Barbera's representation of a client in child-support and custody proceedings and his failure to cooperate with the disciplinary investigation. A three-member panel found all charged misconduct and recommended an 18-month suspension with the final 12 months conditionally stayed; the Board of Professional Conduct adopted that recommendation and added a $900 restitution requirement. The Supreme Court of Ohio overruled Barbera's objections, adopted the findings and sanction, and imposed the suspension with conditions.