Due Process Challenge To Proposed Reprimand

Kathleen Maloney has a summary of a bar discipline case scheduled before the Ohio Supreme Court for oral argument

The Ohio Board of Professional Conduct recommends that James Reinheimer of Port Clinton receive a public reprimand for failing to communicate fully with his client during a Sandusky County defamation lawsuit.

Reinheimer objects to the board’s findings and recommended sanction, arguing the board panel that conducted the disciplinary hearing found he violated professional conduct rules that weren’t part of the original allegations.

Attorney Hired to Represent Woman in Defamation Suit
In August 2013, Angela Weber (Bowers) hired Reinheimer to represent her in the defamation case, which was filed against her by her daughter’s father, Brett Forinash. The couple was engaged in multiple legal actions against each other, including custody actions and a civil protection order request. In the defamation lawsuit, Forinash alleged that Bowers made false and defamatory statements about him on her Facebook page in 2012. Reinheimer responded to the complaint.

The board’s report states that Reinheimer and Weber discussed the case in person and on the phone. Weber didn’t want to testify at a trial, but indicated she would if she had to. They talked about various strategies to avoid the need for her to testify. Weber told Reinheimer she wouldn’t agree to settle the case even for $1.

In September 2015, Forinash requested summary judgment in the case. Reinheimer didn’t inform Weber about the motion and didn’t file a response. The Sandusky County Common Pleas Court issued summary judgment in Forinash’s favor, awarding him $100 in compensatory damages and $500 in punitive damages. The court also ordered Weber to pay $2,000 in attorney fees plus the costs of the proceedings.

Disciplinary Charges Filed against Attorney
At the disciplinary hearing, Reinheimer said his trial strategy was to let the court grant summary judgment against Weber by not responding to the motion. He adopted this strategy for several reasons, including because Weber was reluctant to testify and because he believed the judge would award a minimal amount in damages. He acknowledged he didn’t document anything confirming that Weber knew about, and approved, this strategy.

The Office of Disciplinary Counsel, which investigated the matter, alleged three violations of the rules governing the conduct of Ohio attorneys. After the disciplinary hearing, the board’s panel dismissed two of the three charges. The panel also asked the parties to submit additional written arguments, and then it dismissed the third charge but found Reinheimer violated two other rules. Specifically, Reinheimer violated the rules requiring a lawyer to promptly inform the client about decisions and developments that need the client’s informed consent, and to explain case matters so the client can make informed decisions, the board report states.

The report notes there was no issue with Reinheimer’s strategy and tactics. However, the report states, the lawyer didn’t properly discuss his strategy with Weber and didn’t inform her that by not responding to the summary judgment request she might have to pay damages and fees.

The board recommends that the Supreme Court publicly reprimand Reinheimer for the misconduct. The Court will hear the lawyer’s disciplinary case during oral arguments that will be held by teleconference. The Court is meeting remotely to comply with state directives during the COVID-19 pandemic.

No Opportunity to Defend against Eventual Rule Violations, Attorney Contends
Reinheimer argues in his objections that he defended himself against the three charges that were in the original complaint and was successful in getting those dismissed. But then he was found in violation of two rules that weren’t charged. Because the panel determined he violated those two rules after the hearing, he was unable to defend against the new charges in a hearing – a violation of his right to due process, Reiheimer maintains.

He also contends that the evidence doesn’t support the adopted rule violations. He argues he properly informed Bowers of the strategy.

Poor Communication Always Part of Charges, Disciplinary Counsel Argues
In its answer brief, the disciplinary counsel responds that the original and the adopted rule violations all fall under Rule 1.4 of the Rules of Professional Conduct. Rule 1.4 addresses lawyer obligations when communicating with clients. The disciplinary counsel states the factual allegations and one of the alleged rule violations in the original complaint made clear that Reinheimer’s communication with his client was an issue in the disciplinary case. Because the lawyer had notice that his communication with Weber was part of the complaint, the board could find that Reinheimer violated any provision in Rule 1.4, the office argues. It adds the lawyer hasn’t offered any physical evidence to dispute the finding.

The disciplinary counsel notes that Weber told Reinheimer early on she didn’t want to pay even $1 to settle the case, and that Weber was upset when she received the $2,600 judgment in the mail. Such evidence supports the board’s findings, and no evidence weighs substantially against them, the disciplinary counsel concludes.

– Kathleen Maloney

Docket entries, memoranda, briefs (including amicus briefs), and other information about this case may be accessed through the case docket.