No Deal?

There was a very interesting February 24 oral argument before the Ohio Supreme Court that is now posted online.

The issue that clearly troubled the court involved the changed position on sanction of the Cleveland Municipal Bar Association. The attorney and the Bar had stipulated to the violations – failure to appear and (as a Justice called it) repeatedly “hitting on” the client – and to a stayed six-month suspension.

The Bar Association later changed its position and now asks the court to impose  an active suspension of six months.

The court was concerned about the state of the record and the overall fairness of holding the attorney to the stipulation when the Bar is challenging the sanction it had agreed to as appropriate.

Members of the court pressed for the reason. The response in essence was that the attorney had showed insufficient remorse. Counsel for both sides go outside the record concerning the circumstances of the stipulation and the reason that the Bar now wants an active suspension.

I’d call the court skeptical of the Bar’s reasons for upping the ante in a stipulated proceeding.

The attorney is represented by his brother, who discusses evidence that their 90 year old lawyer-father appeared as counsel when the respondent stipulated that he had failed to do so. He contended that the agreement on the facts was the product of a negotiated agreement for a stayed suspension but not accurate in fact..

The Board of Professional Conduct report is here. Our prior coverage is linked here. 

I have not seen a lot of remands in the Ohio disciplinary cases. That may happen here.  (Mike Frisch)