Case Summaries Educate The Public

A nice feature of the excellent web page  of the Ohio Supreme Court is a summary of cases scheduled for argument.

For example

The Board of Commissioners on Grievances and Discipline recommended to the Supreme Court in a December 2014 report that Thomas J. Simon of Ashtabula be suspended for two years, with 18 months stayed. The board determined that Simon neglected two cases because he didn’t keep the clients reasonably informed about their cases, including that courts had dismissed them. (The disciplinary board is now known as the Board of Professional Conduct.)

Clients Complain
Danny Hubbard lost his job as a truck driver for the Village of Jefferson in 2009 and hired Simon to represent him in a wrongful termination case. Hubbard claims he never received three letters about his case – two spelling out the cost of the attorney’s retainer, and one about the status of the case. Simon also missed a hearing. After reviewing Hubbard’s sometimes conflicting testimony, the disciplinary board panel that reviewed the matter concluded that Simon didn’t inform Hubbard about the need for a retainer, didn’t tell him about information needed for discovery or the city’s request for summary judgment from the court, and didn’t ask for the client’s consent before dismissing the case. Simon also neglected to inform Hubbard that he had no professional liability insurance.

In the second case, Louis Grippi hired Simon in April 2010 for a wrongful termination claim involving the City of Ashtabula and a union. Simon didn’t respond to motions made by the city and the union, and the case was dismissed with prejudice. Grippi stated that he found out his case was dismissed while reading the newspaper. The board’s panel determined that the attorney didn’t keep Grippi informed about the case status and failed to notify the client about the pending dismissal of his case.

Attorney’s Objections
Simon, who served as Ashtabula’s city solicitor for more than two decades, objects to the board’s conclusions and recommended sanction. He argues that the panel failed to consider all the evidence provided. Given each client’s conflicting testimony before the board’s panel, Simon contends that the disciplinary counsel didn’t meet its burden of proof with clear and convincing evidence. He notes that no harm came to either client and he cooperated in the disciplinary process. He adds that the Ashtabula County Bar Association dismissed Hubbard’s grievance against him. In Grippi’s case, Simon contends that he also learned about the case dismissal from the newspaper.

He concludes that he has violated only one professional conduct rule, and he asks the court to either fully stay any suspension or issue a public reprimand.

Disciplinary Counsel’s Perspective
The Office of Disciplinary Counsel, which investigated the complaints, counters that it met the burden by presenting clear and convincing evidence of the professional conduct violations at the hearing. The disciplinary counsel notes that the panel is in the best position to evaluate the evidence and the credibility of witnesses to draw its conclusions, which were that Simon didn’t keep his clients reasonably informed about their cases. Counsel supports the two-year suspension with 18 months stayed.

– Kathleen Maloney

A gold star for this. (Mike Frisch)