Disciplinary Counsel v. Barnett

Attorneys at law—Misconduct—Indefinite suspension—Neglecting an entrusted legal matter—Engaging in conduct prejudicial to the administration of justice—Engaging in conduct adversely reflecting on fitness to practice law—Failing to carry out contract for professional services—Prejudicing or damaging client during course of professional relationship—Knowingly making a false statement of law or fact—Failing to cooperate in disciplinary investigation of grievance.

Attorneys at law—Misconduct—One-year suspension stayed—Violating a Disciplinary Rule—Engaging in conduct adversely reflecting on ability to practice law—Engaging in conduct involving dishonesty, fraud, deceit, or misrepresentation—Failing to withdraw from employment when continued employment will violate a Disciplinary Rule—Neglecting an entrusted legal matter—Failing to carry out contract of employment for professional services—Failing to promptly pay or deliver to client property or funds to which client is entitled.

Attorneys at law—Misconduct—Two-year suspension with one year stayed on conditions—Neglect of an entrusted legal matter—Failing to carry out contract for professional services—Failing to obtain permission from tribunal to withdraw from a case, when such permission is required—Withdrawing from employment without taking reasonable steps to avoid prejudicing a client—Failing to return promptly, when requested, property client is entitled to receive—Prejudicing or damaging client during course of professional relationship—Failing to assist in disciplinary investigation.

Mandamus—Public-records requests—Relator failed to show that the only named respondent, a mail-room employee, had a clear legal duty to provide requested public records—Court of appeals improperly dismissed complaint after granting summary judgment to respondent—Court of appeals' judgment modified, and writ and request for statutory damages denied.

Attorney fees—$400 an hour determined to be reasonable rate given respondents' concession and the absence of satisfactory evidence submitted by relator in support of $690 rate billed by relator's attorneys—Respondents invoked "good-faith exception" too late because former R.C. 149.43(C)(3)(c) does not provide a basis for reducing an award of attorney fees but, rather, applies only to the court's initial determination of whether to award fees to a prevailing relator—Relator's attorney-fee application granted in amount of $28,120.