Thanks for visiting! Welcome to a new way to research case law. You are viewing a free summary from Descrybe.ai. For citation and good law / bad law checking, legal issue analysis, and other advanced tools, explore our Legal Research Toolkit — not free, but close.
Dayton Bar Ass'n v. Ellison
Citation: 118 Ohio St. 3d 128Docket: No. 2007-1999
Court: Ohio Supreme Court; April 23, 2008; Ohio; State Supreme Court
Kathy Lee Ellison, an attorney admitted to practice in Ohio since 1979, faced a recommendation for a six-month suspension due to professional misconduct, including neglecting two clients' cases and misleading one about the outcome of her case. The Board of Commissioners on Grievances and Discipline found that Ellison violated several provisions of the Code of Professional Responsibility: DR 1-102(A)(4) (fraud and deceit), DR 1-102(A)(6) (conduct reflecting adversely on fitness), and DR 6-101(A)(3) (neglecting a legal matter). The misconduct involved two cases: 1. **Parker Case**: Ray Allen Parker hired Ellison for a divorce case in 1997, specifically to secure a Qualified Domestic Relations Order (QDRO) for his interest in his ex-wife's 401(k). Although a divorce decree was obtained, Ellison failed to finalize the QDRO, neglecting to pursue it despite complications from the ex-wife's bankruptcy. Eventually, Parker had to hire another lawyer to obtain his share. 2. **Grismer Case**: Christina L. Grismer engaged Ellison in 2001 for an employment discrimination lawsuit. After filing the case, Ellison failed to file a response to a summary judgment motion, resulting in the court granting the motion as unopposed. She misled Grismer about the status of her case, not informing her of the adverse judgment until months later, only admitting her failure when confronted. Ellison's stipulated sanction is a one-year suspension, stayed on conditions to ensure ethical practice management. The board upheld the findings and recommendations of the hearing panel. Respondent received an electronic notification of a court ruling granting summary judgment as unopposed but did not open it immediately, leading to a delay in her awareness of the judgment. Upon realization, she failed to take any action to assist in Grismer’s claim. This inaction and dishonesty constituted violations of DR 1-102(A)(4), DR 1-102(A)(6), and DR 6-101(A)(3). Typically, such violations result in an actual suspension; however, given mitigating circumstances, a stayed suspension was deemed appropriate, extending the period to one year to allow the respondent to demonstrate compliance with ethical standards. The respondent has 27 years of experience primarily serving domestic relations clients in Dayton, where she handles around 100 divorces annually. Despite the complexities of her cases, some clients struggle to pay, and Grismer had only partially compensated her. Although she has a nearly 20-year-old public reprimand for previous neglect, she is respected by peers for her commitment to assisting those in need, contributing positively to public confidence in the legal system. The respondent fully cooperated with the disciplinary process, acknowledged her wrongdoing, and expressed remorse. Consequently, she is suspended from practicing law in Ohio for one year, with the suspension stayed contingent upon one year of probation during which she must cooperate with a monitoring attorney and complete a continuing legal education course on law office management. Failure to meet these conditions will result in the enforcement of the full suspension. Costs are assigned to the respondent, with Chief Justice Moyer and Justices Pfeifer, Lundberg Stratton, O’Connor, O’Donnell, and Lanzinger concurring, while Justice Cupp dissents, advocating for a six-month stayed suspension.