A public reprimand was imposed by the Ohio Supreme Court of an attorney who had neglected and failed to communicate  with two clients (brothers) in habeas corpus matters.

The court described the factors that led to a non-suspensory sanction

The parties stipulated, and the board agreed, that the relevant mitigating factors include the absence of a prior disciplinary record, the absence of a dishonest or selfish motive, Smith’s full and free disclosure to the board and her cooperative attitude toward the disciplinary proceedings, evidence of her good character and reputation apart from the charged misconduct, and her acknowledgment and acceptance of full responsibility before the complaint was filed. See BCGD Proc.Reg. 10(B)(2)(a), (b), (d), and (e). Additionally, the parties stipulated and the board found that no client was harmed by Smith’s conduct. None of the aggravating factors set forth in BCGD Proc.Reg. 10(B)(1) are present.