text:
    COLUMBUS BAR ASSOCIATION v. MAGEE.
    No. 2017-1737
    Supreme Court of Ohio.
    Submitted January 24, 2018 Decided August 16, 2018
    Lori J. Brown, Bar Counsel, and A. Alysha Clous and Kelly C. Patton, Assistant Bar Counsel; and Levy & Associates, L.L.C., and Yale R. Levy, Columbus, for relator.
    The Mirman Law Firm, L.L.C., and Joel H. Mirman, Columbus, for respondent.
   Per Curiam.

{¶ 1} Respondent, Neal Hall Magee II, of Columbus, Ohio, Attorney Registration No. 0001214, was admitted to the practice of law in Ohio in 1966.

{¶ 2} In a complaint certified to the Board of Professional Conduct on November 3, 2016, relator, Columbus Bar Association, alleged that Magee violated multiple provisions of the Rules of Professional Conduct while serving as guardian of a client's property and trustee of an inter vivos trust that he had drafted for that client. The parties submitted stipulated facts and exhibits, and Magee agreed that he had failed to act with reasonable diligence in representing his client, had knowingly disobeyed an obligation under the rules of a tribunal, and had failed to cooperate in the ensuing disciplinary investigation. The parties jointly recommended that Magee be disbarred for those violations. Relator declined to dismiss six additional alleged violations.

{¶ 3} Magee did not attend the hearing before a panel of the board to consider the charges, but he was represented by counsel. The panel issued a report in which it found that Magee had committed all the charged misconduct. It recommended not only that Magee be disbarred, but that he be ordered to make restitution in excess of $300,000 to the various entities harmed by his misconduct. The board adopted the panel's report in its entirety.

{¶ 4} We adopt the board's findings of fact and misconduct, order Magee to make restitution in the aggregate amount of $312,899.47, and permanently disbar him from the practice of law in Ohio.

Misconduct

{¶ 5} In March 2008, Magee drafted the Bruce Family Revocable Living Trust for his client, Dr. William A. Bruce. The trust provided that upon Bruce's death, the remaining trust property was to be distributed free of trust, 75 percent to Nationwide Children's Hospital Foundation ("NCHF") and 25 percent to Goucher College. The trust designated Bruce as the initial trustee and provided that upon his disability or death, Magee would serve as the successor trustee. Sometime after executing the trust, Bruce moved to a senior living facility in Delaware.

{¶ 6} On February 3, 2010, the Delaware Court of Chancery adjudicated Bruce incompetent and appointed his brother as guardian of Bruce's person and Magee as guardian of Bruce's property. The court also authorized Magee to transfer any assets remaining in the sole name of Bruce to the trust and to "administer the assets of William A. Bruce in accordance with the terms of the Trust." The court ordered Magee to file an inventory within 30 days and an audited accounting of the guardianship and trust assets within six months and annually thereafter and to forward copies of those accountings to the beneficiaries of the trust.

{¶ 7} Magee timely submitted a letter and documents titled "Inventory of William A. Bruce" to the chancery court, accompanied by partial statements for a trust checking account and two investment services. A court-appointed accounting firm reviewed the receipts and disbursements for the trust and the guardianship assets from February 1 through June 30, 2010. The firm's August 2010 report to the court noted just two exceptional expenses, both of which had been approved by the chancery court.

{¶ 8} On October 1, 2010, Magee executed an amendment to the trust that added his adult children as successor trustees and deleted the provision for the outright distribution of the balance of the trust assets, free of trust, to the beneficiaries upon Bruce's death. Instead, the amendment stated that the "Trustee, at his discretion, shall pay to the Beneficiaries an amount not less than five (5%) percent of the balance of the Trust Estate as of December 31 of the preceding year" and thus provided that the trust assets would remain in the trust indefinitely. Magee did not request or obtain the chancery court's permission to amend the trust, believing that a power of attorney executed by Bruce granted him the authority to do so.

{¶ 9} Ten months after submission of the audited trust accounting and eight months after he amended the trust, Magee sent a letter to NCHF introducing himself as trustee of the trust, apologizing for his failure to timely forward a copy of the trust accounting, and promising that he would send future reports on a timely basis. The letter also stated, "Dr. and Mrs. Bruce had no children so charities are the beneficiaries of their monies. Distribution will be made after his death."

{¶ 10} Bruce died in Florida on October 31, 2012. As guardian of Bruce's property, Magee filed a final accounting of Bruce's assets with the chancery court in December 2012. The court terminated the guardianship on February 1, 2013.

{¶ 11} The chancery court's order appointing Magee as guardian of Bruce's property had set the fee for Magee's services as trustee at 1 percent of the value of the trust assets as determined annually on December 31st for the following year. It also provided for payment of legal fees only to a specific law firm and to Bruce's guardian ad litem. It made no provision for the payment of legal fees to Magee. Yet Magee paid himself at least $148,839.13 in trustee fees from the trust assets between February 2009 and September 2013-usually in amounts between $1,000 and $1,500 every few weeks. He also paid himself legal fees of $34,310.21 between 2011 and 2013 without the chancery court's approval. Furthermore, Magee transferred $682,821.05 in additional funds from the trust's accounts to his personal accounts between January 2009 and May 2013.

{¶ 12} On May 22, 2013, Magee sent a letter informing NCHF that the trust had securities holdings of $2,132,439 and advising that the trust's funds were held in a trust checking account with a balance of $40,095.55. He failed to disclose that more than $442,000 had been transferred from the trust to his personal accounts just days before he sent the letter. Magee failed to respond to NCHF's request, made pursuant to R.C. 5808.13, for a copy of a trustee's report and in August 2013, NCHF and Goucher College signed a notice removing him as trustee and removing his children as successor trustees.

{¶ 13} On August 23, 2013, Magee appeared in Wetzel County, West Virginia, and executed documents to appoint himself executor of Bruce's estate. He then executed a fiduciary deed as "Neal H. Magee II, Executor, of the Estate of William A. Bruce" to transfer Bruce's interest in certain Wetzel County property into the trust. Fifth Third Bank was named successor trustee of the trust on August 27, 2013. On September 6, 2013, Magee executed another fiduciary deed, falsely signing as trustee for the trust and transferring the Wetzel County property to himself as the executor of Bruce's estate. At the time of Magee's disciplinary hearing in September 2017, the Wetzel County property remained titled in his name as the executor of Bruce's West Virginia estate, and Magee provided no evidence that he had informed the successor trustee about the existence of that property or the pending probate proceeding.

{¶ 14} When Magee was removed as the trustee, the trust had assets valued at approximately $2.6 million, and Magee ultimately transferred $2,597,294 to the bank appointed as successor trustee by the beneficiaries. But a $424,595.11 check that Magee issued to the trust from his personal checking account on October 31, 2013, was returned by the bank for insufficient funds. Shortly thereafter, Magee sent a fabricated "statement" to the beneficiaries purporting to show a Scottrade trust account with a balance of $424,595.11-in an apparent attempt to conceal the fact that those funds had been transferred from the trust to his personal bank accounts while he served as the trustee. Subsequently, Magee remitted a $424,500 cashier's check to the trust.

{¶ 15} Magee did not respond to a letter from counsel for NCHF advising him that his purported accounting was not sufficient and requesting records documenting the trust's holdings. Therefore, on January 24, 2014, the trust beneficiaries filed a complaint in the Franklin County Probate Court to compel Magee to furnish a trust report as required by R.C. 5808.13(C) and the express provisions of the trust. After Magee failed to file a responsive pleading, the court granted the beneficiaries' motion for default judgment and ordered him to provide the trust report within 30 days. The court later found Magee in contempt of that order and appointed an accounting firm to prepare and submit a forensic accounting for the trust at his expense for the period of March 3, 2008, to March 28, 2014.

{¶ 16} Although Magee paid only $5,000 of the accounting firm's $7,500 retainer, the firm commenced its work. Magee failed to respond to the firm's request that he submit additional documentation. Therefore, it was impossible for the firm to provide a complete accounting.

{¶ 17} On November 24, 2014, the firm issued a report. It indicated that in addition to legal fees of $34,310.21 and trustee's fees of $148,839.13, Magee had withdrawn approximately $514,000 from various trust accounts-including the transfer of more than $442,000 directly to his personal bank accounts. While acknowledging that Magee had returned $424,500 to the trust, the forensic accountant reported that Magee had withdrawn approximately $89,000 more that remained unaccounted for and that she had been unable to track another 116 material transactions for which Magee had provided no supporting documentation. {¶ 18} Magee did not appear for the hearing on the beneficiaries' subsequent motion to show cause. On June 15, 2015, the probate court adopted the magistrate's decision, granted the motion, and ordered Magee to pay $20,765 to the forensic accountant, $21,225.78 to counsel for Goucher College, $40,264.80 to counsel for NCHF, and restitution of $89,000 to the trust within 45 days from the date of the entry. Magee has not complied with any of those orders, but after the accounting firm executed a covenant not to sue him, Magee paid the firm $2,076.50.

{¶ 19} In addition to the forensic accounting prepared for the probate proceeding, the relator and Magee submitted numerous bank statements as stipulated exhibits in this disciplinary proceeding. Those statements confirmed all but one of the fund transfers from the trust to Magee identified by the accountant as being "other" than legal or trustee fees. The statements also revealed additional fund transfers that were not identified in the forensic accounting, including $170,000 from the trust to Magee's personal accounts and $90,000 from Magee's accounts to the trust. Thus, pursuant to the stipulated exhibits, the board found that in addition to the legal and trustee fees that Magee had paid himself, he had received an additional $168,321.05 from the trust that has not been reimbursed.

{¶ 20} Based on its findings that Magee failed to provide complete and accurate accountings to the trust beneficiaries and disobeyed orders of the chancery and probate courts, the board found that Magee had violated Prof.Cond.R. 1.3 (requiring a lawyer to act with reasonable diligence in representing a client) and 3.4(c) (prohibiting a lawyer from knowingly disobeying an obligation under the rules of a tribunal).

{¶ 21} The board also found that by paying himself attorney fees and trustee fees in excess of those authorized by the chancery court while simultaneously misappropriating funds from the trust and engaging in activities to conceal that misappropriation, Magee violated Prof.Cond.R. 1.5(a) (prohibiting a lawyer from making an agreement for, charging, or collecting an illegal or clearly excessive fee) and 1.7(a)(2) (prohibiting representation if a lawyer's personal interests will materially limit his ability to carry out appropriate action for the client).

{¶ 22} And because Magee repeatedly failed to produce requested documents with potential evidentiary value, amended the trust for self-serving reasons after the grantor had been declared incompetent, misappropriated trust funds, created and submitted fraudulent documentation to conceal that misappropriation, and falsely represented himself to a court as the trustee following his removal from that position, the board also found that he violated Prof.Cond.R. 3.4(a) (prohibiting a lawyer from unlawfully altering, destroying, or concealing a document or other material having potential evidentiary value), 3.4(b) (prohibiting a lawyer from falsifying evidence), 8.4(c) (prohibiting a lawyer from engaging in conduct involving dishonesty, fraud, deceit, or misrepresentation), and 8.4(d) (prohibiting a lawyer from engaging in conduct that is prejudicial to the administration of justice).

{¶ 23} In addition, the board found that Magee's failure to respond to relator's letters of inquiry regarding the August 2015 grievance filed against him and his failure to comply with a December 2015 subpoena duces tecum for financial records related to the trust until he appeared for a September 18, 2017 deposition violated Prof.Cond.R. 8.1(b) and Gov.Bar R. V(9)(G) (both requiring a lawyer to cooperate with a disciplinary investigation).

{¶ 24} We adopt these findings of fact and misconduct.

Sanction

{¶ 25} When imposing sanctions for attorney misconduct, we consider several relevant factors, including the ethical duties that the lawyer violated, the aggravating and mitigating factors listed in Gov.Bar R. V(13), and the sanctions imposed in similar cases.

{¶ 26} The board found seven aggravating factors, including Magee's dishonest or selfish motive, his pattern of misconduct, his multiple offenses, his lack of cooperation in the disciplinary process, the vulnerability of and resulting harm to victims of the misconduct, and his failure to make full restitution. See Gov.Bar R. V(13)(B)(1), (2), (3), (4), (5), (8), and (9). His absence of a prior disciplinary record is the only mitigating factor present. See Gov.Bar R. V(13)(C)(1).

{¶ 27} The parties have stipulated and the board has found that the appropriate sanction for Magee's misconduct is permanent disbarment. The board also recommends that we order Magee to make restitution in an aggregate amount of $312,899.47 to the entities harmed by his misconduct.

{¶ 28} We have stated that the presumptive sanction for the misappropriation of client funds is disbarment. See , e.g. , Cleveland Bar Assn. v. Dixon , 95 Ohio St.3d 490, 2002-Ohio-2490, 769 N.E.2d 816, ¶ 15. And in Cincinnati Bar Assn. v. Sanz , 128 Ohio St.3d 373, 2011-Ohio-766, 944 N.E.2d 674, ¶ 12-13, we permanently disbarred an attorney who, like Magee, had misappropriated trust funds while he served as a trustee and failed to respond to the beneficiaries' repeated requests for an accounting. We therefore agree that the facts of this case warrant permanent disbarment.

{¶ 29} Accordingly, Neal Hall Magee II is permanently disbarred from the practice of law in Ohio and is ordered to make restitution to be paid as follows:

• $168,321.05 to Fifth Third Bank as successor trustee of the Bruce Family Revocable Living Trust, for trust funds misappropriated by Magee;
• $34,310.21 to Fifth Third Bank as successor trustee of the Bruce Family Revocable Living Trust, for disgorgement of attorney fees;
• $30,089.13 to Fifth Third Bank as successor trustee of the Bruce Family Revocable Living Trust, for disgorgement of excessive and unauthorized trustee's fees;
• $21,225.78 to Goucher College in care of Vorys, Sater, Seymour & Pease, L.L.P., as reimbursement of Goucher's attorney fees under the June 15, 2015 order of the Franklin County Probate Court in case No. 564621A;
• $40,264.80 to Nationwide Children's Hospital Foundation in care of Vorys, Sater, Seymour & Pease, L.L.P., as reimbursement of the foundation's attorney fees under the June 15, 2015 order of the Franklin County Probate Court in case No. 564621A;
• $18,688.50 to Groner, Boyle & Quillin, L.L.P., for the remaining balance of the firm's forensic accounting fee for the Bruce Family Revocable Living Trust under the June 15, 2015 order of the Franklin County Probate Court in case No. 564621A.

{¶ 30} Costs are taxed to Magee.

Judgment accordingly.

O'Connor, C.J., and O'Donnell, Kennedy, French, Fischer, and DeWine, JJ., concur.

DeGenaro, J., not participating.

      That document was a plain piece of paper stating:


source: Caselaw Access Project

author: Per Curiam.

license: Public Domain

text:
    COLUMBUS BAR ASSOCIATION v. RIESER.
    No. 2017-1741
    Supreme Court of Ohio.
    Submitted April 10, 2018 Decided September 26, 2018
    James E. Arnold & Associates, L.P.A., and David C. Winters ; Poling Law and G. Michael Romanello ; and Lori J. Brown, Bar Counsel, and A. Alysha Clous, Assistant Bar Counsel, for relator.
    Kegler, Brown, Hill & Ritter, L.P.A., and Jonathan E. Coughlan, for respondent.
   Per Curiam.

{¶ 1} Respondent, David Paul Rieser, of Columbus, Ohio, Attorney Registration No. 0025247, was admitted to the practice of law in Ohio in 1980. On May 3, 1995, we publicly reprimanded him for neglecting two client matters.

Disciplinary Counsel v. Rieser , 72 Ohio St.3d 130, 647 N.E.2d 1366 (1995). And on August 15, 2001, we suspended him for two years with 18 months of the suspension stayed on conditions for neglecting two additional client matters. Columbus Bar Assn. v. Rieser , 93 Ohio St.3d 143, 753 N.E.2d 177 (2001), reinstatement granted , 95 Ohio St.3d 1211, 2002-Ohio-2004, 766 N.E.2d 992.

{¶ 2} In a February 8, 2017 complaint, relator, Columbus Bar Association, alleged that Rieser violated six professional-conduct rules in conjunction with his representation of a single client in a criminal matter.

{¶ 3} The parties submitted stipulations of fact, misconduct, and aggravating and mitigating factors and jointly recommended that Rieser be suspended from the practice of law for two years with one year of the suspension stayed on conditions. The matter proceeded to a hearing before a panel of the Board of Professional Conduct. The panel adopted the parties' stipulations of fact, misconduct, and aggravating and mitigating factors but recommended that Rieser be indefinitely suspended from the practice of law. The board adopted the panel's report in its entirety. Rieser objects, arguing that the board's recommended sanction is not supported by the law or facts, and relator agrees.

{¶ 4} Having independently reviewed the record and our precedent, we adopt the board's findings of fact and misconduct, sustain Rieser's objection, and suspend him from the practice of law for two years with one year of the suspension conditionally stayed.

Misconduct

{¶ 5} In March 2012, Rieser was retained by a psychiatrist who had been indicted on felony counts of workers'-compensation fraud, theft, and tampering with records. Although they had agreed upon an initial payment of $30,000 for attorney fees, they did not execute a written fee agreement or discuss the rate, basis, or total amount of Rieser's fee. Rieser did not keep contemporaneous time records for the work that he performed on the client's behalf, nor did he send the client any billing statements. He also failed to inform the client that he did not maintain professional-liability insurance.

{¶ 6} After Rieser had received the client's initial payment of $30,000, he did not request any additional fees. Nonetheless, from June 25, 2012, to December 10, 2012, the client sent him eight checks, bringing Rieser's total compensation to $107,998.79. Rieser deposited $50,000 of the payments into his client trust account, deposited approximately $23,000 into his business account, and indorsed two checks totaling nearly $25,000 to a local art gallery. He did not maintain a client ledger or conduct monthly reconciliations of the funds held in his client trust account.

{¶ 7} Rieser understood that one of his client's primary goals was to maintain his medical license. With the client's consent, Rieser sought advice from another attorney, who stated that the client would have a better chance of achieving that goal if the client were convicted of a misdemeanor instead of a felony offense. In December of 2012, the client pleaded guilty to one misdemeanor count of workers'-compensation fraud, and the remaining charges were dismissed. The client reimbursed the Bureau of Workers' Compensation the $257.40 he was found to have overbilled the bureau plus the $70,497.68 cost of the resulting investigation. No other sanctions were imposed.

{¶ 8} The client filed a grievance against Rieser in April 2015. Rieser failed to respond to relator's initial request for the client's file and twice failed to appear for a deposition.

{¶ 9} On these facts, the parties stipulated and the board found that Rieser violated Prof.Cond.R. 1.4(c) (requiring a lawyer to inform the client if the lawyer does not maintain professional-liability insurance), 1.5(a) (prohibiting a lawyer from making an agreement for, charging, or collecting an illegal or clearly excessive fee), 1.5(b) (requiring an attorney to communicate the nature and scope of the representation, and the basis or rate of the fee and expenses within a reasonable time after commencing the representation unless the lawyer has regularly represented the client and will charge the client on the same basis as previously charged), 1.15(a) (requiring a lawyer to hold the property of clients in an interest-bearing client trust account, separate from the lawyer's own property), 1.15(a)(2) (requiring a lawyer to maintain a record for each client that sets forth the name of the client; the date, amount, and source of all funds received on behalf of the client; and the current balance for each client), 1.15(c) (requiring a lawyer to deposit advance legal fees and expenses into a client trust account, to be withdrawn by the lawyer only as fees are earned or expenses incurred), and 8.1(b) (prohibiting a lawyer from knowingly failing to respond to a demand for information by a disciplinary authority during an investigation).

{¶ 10} No one contests these findings of fact and misconduct, and we adopt them as our own.

Recommended Sanction

{¶ 11} When imposing sanctions for attorney misconduct, we consider all relevant factors, including the ethical duties that the lawyer violated, relevant aggravating and mitigating factors, and the sanctions imposed in similar cases. See Gov.Bar R. V(13)(A).

{¶ 12} As aggravating factors, the parties stipulated and the board found that Rieser has been disciplined on two prior occasions and committed multiple offenses in this case. See Gov.Bar R. V(13)(B)(1) and (4). The board also found that Rieser failed to cooperate with relator's investigation and that he has yet to apply for termination of the monitored probation imposed in his second disciplinary case. See Gov.Bar R. V(13)(B)(5) and V(21)(D).

{¶ 13} In mitigation, Rieser submitted six letters from judges and lawyers who attested to his good character and reputation. See Gov.Bar R. V(13)(C)(5). Rieser also established the existence of a qualifying mental-health disorder by submitting evidence that (1) he had been diagnosed with situational anxiety and depression following his father's death, (2) those conditions contributed to his failure to cooperate with relator's investigation, (3) he successfully completed a one-year course of treatment, and (4) he received a positive prognosis from a qualified healthcare professional. See Gov.Bar R. V(13)(C)(7). The board also attributed mitigating effect to Rieser's good-faith effort to issue a partial refund to his client-though the client rejected his offer-and subsequent placement of $50,000 in escrow pending the outcome of this proceeding. See Gov.Bar R. V(13)(C)(3).

{¶ 14} Although the parties agreed that the client had paid excessive fees, they could not agree on a reasonable fee for Rieser's services and submitted conflicting evidence on that issue. Relator's expert testified that $15,000 would have been a reasonable fee for Rieser's services. But relator's expert also conceded that a reasonable fee for that type of case could vary among criminal-defense lawyers in Franklin County, stating, "I can tell you with some certainty that it would start at [$]5,000, and that I think a reasonable fee would probably go above 20-, perhaps to 30-." On the other hand, Rieser's expert offered that a reasonable "flat fee" for an experienced criminal practitioner to handle a case of this kind in Franklin County could range from $40,000 to $80,000. Given the status of this client and the favorable result that Rieser obtained, he believed that a fee in the amount of $60,000 would have been entirely reasonable in this case.

{¶ 15} After considering the experts' testimony and the factors set forth in Prof.Cond.R. 1.5(a) for determining the reasonableness of a fee, the board determined that a reasonable fee for Rieser's representation in this case lies somewhere between the $30,000 conceded by relator's expert and the $60,000 suggested by Rieser's expert. Therefore, the board recommended that Rieser be ordered to remit the $50,000 held in escrow to his client as restitution in this case.

{¶ 16} Citing Rieser's acceptance of a fee that was approximately double what it should have been, his use of those funds for personal expenditures, his failure to acknowledge the wrongful nature of his conduct, and his "lack of regret," the board rejected the parties' recommendation that Rieser be suspended from the practice of law for two years with one year stayed on conditions. Instead, citing Columbus Bar Assn. v. Watson , 144 Ohio St.3d 317, 2015-Ohio-4613, 42 N.E.3d 752, the board, following the panel's reasoning, recommends that we indefinitely suspend Rieser from the practice of law and order him to make restitution of $50,000 to the affected client.

Rieser's Objection to the Recommended Sanction

{¶ 17} Rieser objects to the board's recommendation that he be indefinitely suspended from the practice of law. He argues that the board's reliance on Watson is misplaced and that the evidence adduced at the hearing and our decision in Akron Bar Assn. v. DeLoach , 143 Ohio St.3d 39, 2015-Ohio-494, 34 N.E.3d 88, support the imposition of the parties' jointly recommended sanction-a two-year suspension with the second year stayed on conditions. Relator agrees with Rieser's objection and urges this court to consider imposing a lesser sanction than the indefinite suspension recommended by the board.

{¶ 18} In Watson , an attorney who had previously been disciplined for failing to deposit client funds into his client trust account was charged with additional rule violations for engaging in the same type of misconduct in two additional client matters and charging a clearly excessive fee. The evidence showed that in addition to the charged misconduct, Watson filed an objection to the debtor's plan in a bankruptcy proceeding based on incorrect information mistakenly obtained from an unrelated case and failed to appear as counsel for his clients. {¶ 19} While Watson made a timely, good-faith effort to make restitution to one set of clients and exhibited a cooperative attitude toward the disciplinary proceedings, he also failed to refund any of the other clients' retainer-despite having admitted that he charged them an excessive fee-and acted with a selfish motive. In addition, the board found that Watson's own testimony raised "serious doubts about his ability to effectively and ethically practice law." Watson , 144 Ohio St.3d 317, 2015-Ohio-4613, 42 N.E.3d 752, at ¶ 10.

{¶ 20} In Watson , the misconduct at issue mirrored the misconduct that we had sanctioned only two years earlier. In contrast, Rieser's past misconduct involved different offenses-mainly the neglect of client matters-and occurred more than ten years before he accepted the excessive fee at issue in this case.

{¶ 21} While Watson's clients became dissatisfied during or immediately after the course of Watson's representation, Rieser's client repeatedly expressed his satisfaction with Rieser's work. Indeed, witnesses for both parties to this proceeding agreed that Rieser provided quality representation and likely obtained the best possible result for his client under the circumstances. And when Rieser's client filed his grievance, he challenged only the reasonableness of his attorney's fee. But Rieser's uncontroverted testimony shows that after the client made the agreed $30,000 payment, the client insisted on sending significant monthly payments to Rieser-even though Rieser told him that "it wasn't necessary" and suggested that they wait to see how the case progressed before assessing the need for additional fees. Indeed, Rieser's misconduct is unusual in that he did not charge a clearly excessive fee so much as he accepted the client's voluntary-but excessive-payments. And unlike the situation in Watson , the board made no finding that Rieser had acted with a selfish or dishonest motive. Moreover, Rieser presented letters from three judges, two attorneys, and one retired judge attesting to his professionalism and his commitment to his clients. Watson presented no evidence to establish his good character.

{¶ 22} Based on the significant factual differences between this case and Watson , Rieser argues that an indefinite suspension is not necessary to protect the public from future harm. On the contrary, Rieser contends that the similarities between his misconduct and that of DeLoach, his acceptance of full responsibility for his actions, and his efforts to improve the administrative management of his law practice weigh in favor of a two-year suspension with the second year conditionally stayed. We agree.

{¶ 23} In DeLoach , 143 Ohio St.3d 39, 2015-Ohio-494, 34 N.E.3d 88, we imposed a two-year suspension with the second year conditionally stayed on a previously disciplined attorney who charged a clearly excessive fee, failed to deposit a client's retainer into her client trust account, and failed to maintain required records regarding those client funds. But in addition to engaging in misconduct comparable to Rieser's, DeLoach was also found to have neglected an incarcerated client's legal matter. Specifically, nearly two years after being asked to investigate a client's murder conviction, DeLoach filed a single, three-page motion for resentencing and then failed to respond to the state's memorandum in opposition. We attributed some aggravating effect to the fact that DeLoach had engaged in that neglect while her first disciplinary action (for engaging in dishonest conduct during a disciplinary action) was pending. And while we recognized that DeLoach did not act with a dishonest or selfish motive and cooperated in the disciplinary proceedings, we attributed little mitigating effect to her character-and-reputation evidence.

{¶ 24} Here, in addition to the mitigating factors found by the board, Rieser has stipulated that he engaged in the charged misconduct and acknowledged that the additional fees that his client paid were excessive. He testified that he has reduced his caseload and is now focused on representing clients in municipal courts. He has also worked with his legal counsel in this case to improve his office- and trust-account management practices and intends to continue psychological treatment to help him manage his day-to-day stress.

{¶ 25} Based on the foregoing, we agree that the facts of this case are more in line with those of DeLoach than they are with those of Watson . We therefore sustain Rieser's objection and find that a two-year suspension with one year stayed on conditions is the appropriate sanction for Rieser's misconduct.

{¶ 26} Accordingly, David Paul Rieser is suspended from the practice of law in Ohio for two years with one year of the suspension stayed on the conditions that he pay $50,000 in restitution to the affected client within 30 days and that he engage in no further misconduct. If Rieser fails to comply with either condition of the stay, the stay will be lifted and he will serve the full two-year suspension. Costs are taxed to Rieser.

Judgment accordingly.

O'Connor, C.J., and O'Donnell, Kennedy, French, Fischer, DeWine, and DeGenaro, JJ., concur.

      The presiding judge ordered the client to pay restitution to the Bureau of Workers' Compensation but also noted that the restitution had been paid by the date of the sentencing hearing.

      Factors to be considered under Prof.Cond.R. 1.5(a) include:
      (1) the time and labor required, the novelty and difficulty of the questions involved, and the skill requisite to perform the legal service properly;
      (2) the likelihood, if apparent to the client, that the acceptance of the particular employment will preclude other employment by the lawyer;
      (3) the fee customarily charged in the locality for similar legal services;
      (4) the amount involved and the results obtained;
      (5) the time limitations imposed by the client or by the circumstances;
      (6) the nature and length of the professional relationship with the client;
      (7) the experience, reputation, and ability of the lawyer or lawyers performing the services; and
      (8) whether the fee is fixed or contingent.


text:
    LORAIN COUNTY BAR ASSOCIATION v. NELSON.
    No. 2017-1830
    Supreme Court of Ohio.
    Submitted June 6, 2018 Decided July 24, 2018
    {¶ 1} This cause came on for further consideration upon the filing of an application for reinstatement by respondent, Kenneth Allen Nelson II, Attorney Registration No. 0075834, last known business address in Avon Lake, Ohio.
    {¶ 2} The court coming now to consider its order of December 7, 2017, wherein the court, pursuant to Gov.Bar R. V(12)(A)(3), suspended respondent from the practice of law for a period of two years, with 18 months of the suspension stayed on the condition he engage in no further misconduct, finds that respondent has substantially complied with that order and with the provisions of Gov.Bar R. V(24).
    {¶ 3} Therefore, it is ordered by this court that respondent is reinstated to the practice of law in the state of Ohio. It is further ordered that in accordance with Gov.Bar R. V(21) and consistent with the opinion rendered herein on December 7, 2017, respondent shall serve a one-year period of monitored probation focusing on trust-account and record-keeping requirements relating to fees and other client materials.
    {¶ 4} It is further ordered that on or before 30 days from the date of this order, relator shall file with the clerk of this court the name of the attorney who will serve as respondent's monitor, in accordance with Gov.Bar R. V(21)(A)(3). It is further ordered that at the end of respondent's probationary period, relator shall file with the clerk of this court a report indicating whether respondent, during the probationary period, complied with the terms of the probation.
    {¶ 5} It is further ordered that at the end of the probationary period, respondent may apply for termination of probation as provided in Gov.Bar R. V(21). It is further ordered that respondent's probation shall not be terminated until (1) respondent files an application for termination of probation in compliance with Gov.Bar R. V(21)(D), (2) respondent complies with this and all other orders issued by this court, (3) respondent complies with the Rules for the Government of the Bar of Ohio, (4) relator files with the clerk of this court a report indicating that respondent has complied with the terms of the probation, and (5) this court orders that the probation be terminated.
    {¶ 6} It is further ordered that the clerk of this court issue certified copies of this order as provided for in Gov.Bar R. V(17)(D)(1) and that publication be made as provided for in Gov.Bar R. V(17)(D)(2).
    {¶ 7} For earlier case, see Lorain Cty. Bar Assn. v. Nelson , 152 Ohio St.3d 222, 2017-Ohio-8856, 94 N.E.3d 551.
    O'Connor, C.J., and O'Donnell, Kennedy, French, Fischer, DeWine, and DeGenaro, JJ., concur.


text:
    IN RE Resignation of VERKHLIN.
    No. 2018-1147
    Supreme Court of Ohio, Supreme Court of Ohio.
    Submitted August 10, 2018 Decided September 20, 2018
    {¶ 1} Mark Immanuel Verkhlin, Attorney Registration No. 0083203, last known business address in Tallmadge, Ohio, who was admitted to the bar of this state on May 12, 2008, submitted an application for retirement or resignation pursuant to Gov.Bar R. VI(11). The application was referred to disciplinary counsel pursuant to Gov.Bar R. VI(11)(B). On August 10, 2018, the Office of Attorney Services filed disciplinary counsel's report, under seal, with this court in accordance with Gov.Bar R. VI(11)(B)(2).
    {¶ 2} On consideration thereof, it is ordered by the court that pursuant to Gov.Bar R. VI(11)(C), the resignation as an attorney and counselor at law is accepted as a resignation with disciplinary action pending.
    {¶ 3} It is further ordered and adjudged that from and after this date all rights and privileges extended to respondent to practice law in the state of Ohio be withdrawn, that henceforth respondent shall cease to hold himself forth as an attorney authorized to appear in the courts of this state, and that respondent shall not attempt, either directly or indirectly, to render services as an attorney or counselor at law to or for any individuals, corporation, or society, nor in any way perform or seek to perform services for anyone, no matter how constituted, that must by law be executed by a duly appointed and qualified attorney within the state of Ohio.
    {¶ 4} It is further ordered that respondent desist and refrain from the practice of law in any form, either as principal or agent or clerk or employee of another, and hereby is forbidden to appear in the state of Ohio as an attorney and counselor at law before any court, judge, board, commission, or other public authority, and hereby is forbidden to give another an opinion as to the law or its application or advise with relation thereto.
    {¶ 5} It is further ordered that before entering into an employment, contractual, or consulting relationship with any attorney or law firm, respondent shall verify that the attorney or law firm has complied with the registration requirements of Gov.Bar R. V(23)(C). If employed pursuant to Gov.Bar R. V(23), respondent shall refrain from direct client contact except as provided in Gov.Bar R. V(23)(A)(1) and from receiving, disbursing, or otherwise handling any client trust funds or property.
    {¶ 6} It is further ordered that respondent shall not enter into an employment, contractual, or consulting relationship with an attorney or law firm with which respondent was associated as a partner, shareholder, member, or employee at the time respondent engaged in the misconduct that resulted in this acceptance of respondent's resignation with discipline pending.
    {¶ 7} It is further ordered that respondent shall surrender respondent's certificate of admission to practice to the clerk of the court on or before 30 days from the date of this order and that respondent's name be stricken from the roll of attorneys maintained by this court.
    {¶ 8} It is further ordered by the court that within 90 days of the date of this order, respondent shall reimburse any amounts that have been awarded against respondent by the Lawyers' Fund for Client Protection pursuant to Gov.Bar R. VIII(7)(F). It is further ordered by the court that if after the date of this order the Lawyers' Fund for Client Protection awards any amount against respondent pursuant to Gov.Bar R. VIII(7)(F), respondent shall reimburse that amount to the Lawyers' Fund for Client Protection within 90 days of the notice of that award.
    {¶ 9} It is further ordered that on or before 30 days from the date of this order, respondent shall do the following:
    {¶ 10} 1. Notify all clients being represented in pending matters and any co-counsel of respondent's resignation and consequent disqualification to act as an attorney after the effective date of this order and, in the absence of co-counsel, also notify the clients to seek legal services elsewhere, calling attention to any urgency in seeking the substitution of another attorney in respondent's place;
    {¶ 11} 2. Regardless of any fees or expenses due, deliver to all clients being represented in pending matters any papers or other property pertaining to the client or notify the clients or co-counsel, if any, of a suitable time and place where the papers or other property may be obtained, calling attention to any urgency for obtaining such papers or other property;
    {¶ 12} 3. Refund any part of any fees or expenses paid in advance that are unearned or not paid and account for any trust money or property in the possession or control of respondent;
    {¶ 13} 4. Notify opposing counsel or, in the absence of counsel, the adverse parties in pending litigation of respondent's disqualification to act as an attorney after the effective date of this order and file a notice of disqualification of respondent with the court or agency before which the litigation is pending for inclusion in the respective file or files;
   {¶ 14} 5. Send all notices required by this order by certified mail with a return address where communications may thereafter be directed to respondent;

{¶ 15} 6. File with the clerk of this court and disciplinary counsel of the Supreme Court an affidavit showing compliance with this order, showing proof of service of the notices required herein, and setting forth the address where respondent may receive communications; and

{¶ 16} 7. Retain and maintain a record of the various steps taken by respondent pursuant to this order.

{¶ 17} It is further ordered that until such time as respondent fully complies with this order, respondent shall keep the clerk and disciplinary counsel advised of any change of address where respondent may receive communications.

{¶ 18} It is further ordered that all documents filed with this court in this case shall meet the filing requirements set forth in the Rules of Practice of the Supreme Court of Ohio, including requirements as to form, number, and timeliness of filings. All case documents are subject to Sup.R. 44 through 47, which govern access to court records.

{¶ 19} It is further ordered that service shall be deemed made on respondent by sending this order and all other orders in this case to respondent's last known address.

{¶ 20} It is further ordered that the clerk of this court issue certified copies of this order as provided for in Gov.Bar R. V(17)(D)(1) and that publication be made as provided for in Gov.Bar R. V(17)(D)(2).

O'Connor, C.J., and Kennedy, French, and DeWine, JJ., concur.

O'Donnell, Fischer, and DeGenaro, JJ., dissent.


text:
    DISCIPLINARY COUNSEL v. TINCH.
    No. 2018-1178
    Supreme Court of Ohio, Supreme Court of Ohio.
    Submitted August 17, 2018 Decided September 20, 2018
    {¶ 1} On August 17, 2018, and pursuant to Gov.Bar R. V(14)(A), the Board of Professional Conduct filed with this court a certification of default, alleging that respondent, William Matthew Tinch, failed to file an answer to a formal complaint pending before the board. Respondent did not file a response.
    {¶ 2} Upon consideration thereof and pursuant to Gov.Bar R. V(14)(B)(1), it is ordered and decreed that an interim default suspension is immediately entered against William Matthew Tinch, Attorney Registration No. 0088418, last known business address in Franklin, Ohio, and that the suspension is effective as of the date of this entry.
    {¶ 3} It is further ordered that respondent immediately cease and desist from the practice of law in any form and that he is hereby forbidden to appear on behalf of another before any court, judge, commission, board, administrative agency, or other public authority.
    {¶ 4} It is further ordered that effective immediately, respondent is forbidden to counsel, advise, or prepare legal instruments for others or in any manner perform legal services for others.
    {¶ 5} It is further ordered that respondent is hereby divested of each, any, and all of the rights, privileges, and prerogatives customarily accorded to a member in good standing of the legal profession of Ohio.
    {¶ 6} It is further ordered that before entering into an employment, contractual, or consulting relationship with any attorney or law firm, respondent shall verify that the attorney or law firm has complied with the registration requirements of Gov.Bar R. V(23)(C). If employed pursuant to Gov.Bar R. V(23), respondent shall refrain from direct client contact except as provided in Gov.Bar R. V(23)(A)(1) and from receiving, disbursing, or otherwise handling any client trust funds or property.
    {¶ 7} It is further ordered that pursuant to Gov.Bar R. X(13), respondent shall complete one credit hour of continuing legal education for each month, or portion of a month, of the suspension. As part of the total credit hours of continuing legal education required by Gov.Bar R. X(13), respondent shall complete one credit hour of instruction related to professional conduct required by Gov.Bar R. X(3)(B) for each six months, or portion of six months, of the suspension.
    {¶ 8} It is further ordered that respondent shall not be reinstated to the practice of law in Ohio until (1) respondent complies with the requirements for reinstatement set forth in the Supreme Court Rules for the Government of the Bar of Ohio, (2) respondent complies with this and all other orders issued by this court, (3) respondent complies with the Supreme Court Rules for the Government of the Bar of Ohio, and (4) this court orders respondent reinstated.
    {¶ 9} It is further ordered by the court that within 90 days of the date of this order, respondent shall reimburse any amounts that have been awarded by the Lawyers' Fund for Client Protection pursuant to Gov.Bar R. VIII(7)(F). It is further ordered by the court that if after the date of this order the Lawyers' Fund for Client Protection awards any amount against respondent pursuant to Gov.Bar R. VIII(7)(F), respondent shall reimburse that amount to the Lawyers' Fund for Client Protection within 90 days of the notice of that award.
    {¶ 10} It is further ordered that on or before 30 days from the date of this order, respondent shall do the following:
    {¶ 11} 1. Notify all clients being represented in pending matters and any co-counsel of respondent's suspension and consequent disqualification to act as an attorney after the effective date of this order and, in the absence of co-counsel, also notify the clients to seek legal services elsewhere, calling attention to any urgency in seeking the substitution of another attorney in respondent's place;
    {¶ 12} 2. Regardless of any fees or expenses due, deliver to all clients being represented in pending matters any papers or other property pertaining to the client, or notify the clients or co-counsel, if any, of a suitable time and place where the papers or other property may be obtained, calling attention to any urgency for obtaining such papers or other property;
    {¶ 13} 3. Refund any part of any fees or expenses paid in advance that are unearned or not paid and account for any trust money or property in his possession or control;
    {¶ 14} 4. Notify opposing counsel or, in the absence of counsel, the adverse parties in pending litigation of his disqualification to act as an attorney after the effective date of this order and file a notice of disqualification of respondent with the court or agency before which the litigation is pending for inclusion in the respective file or files;
   {¶ 15} 5. Send all notices required by this order by certified mail with a return address where communications may thereafter be directed to respondent;

{¶ 16} 6. File with the clerk of this court and disciplinary counsel of the Supreme Court an affidavit showing compliance with this order, showing proof of service of the notices required herein, and setting forth the address where respondent may receive communications; and {¶ 17} 7. Retain and maintain a record of the various steps taken by respondent pursuant to this order.

{¶ 18} It is further ordered that respondent shall keep the clerk and disciplinary counsel advised of any change of address where respondent may receive communications.

{¶ 19} It is further ordered that all documents filed with this court in this case shall meet the filing requirements set forth in the Rules of Practice of the Supreme Court of Ohio, including requirements as to form, number, and timeliness of filings. All case documents are subject to Sup.R. 44 through 47, which govern access to court records.

{¶ 20} It is further ordered that service shall be deemed made on respondent by sending this order, and all other orders in this case, by certified mail to the most recent address respondent has given to the Office of Attorney Services.

{¶ 21} It is further ordered that the clerk of this court issue certified copies of this order as provided for in Gov.Bar R. V(17)(D)(1) and that publication be made as provided for in Gov.Bar R. V(17)(D)(2).

O'Connor, C.J., and O'Donnell, Kennedy, French, Fischer, DeWine, and DeGenaro, JJ., concur.


text:
    ADMINISTRATIVE ACTIONS
    Supreme Court of Ohio.
    October 22, 2018
    1. Amendments to the Supreme Court Rules for the Government of the Bar ( Gov.Bar R. V (15) and VI (11) and (12) ) were adopted on October 22, 2018, and are effective November 1, 2018. The final version of the amendments is being published in the October 22, 2018 Ohio Official Reports advance sheet.
    O'Connor, C.J., and O'Donnell, Kennedy, French, Fischer, DeWine, and DeGenaro, JJ., concurred in adopting the amendments.
    2. Proposed amendments to the Rules of Superintendence for the Courts of Ohio ( Sup.R. 12 )
    are being published in the October 22, 2018 Ohio Official Reports advance sheet for a public-comment period ending November 21, 2018.
    O'Connor, C.J., and O'Donnell, Kennedy, French, Fischer, DeWine, and DeGenaro, JJ., concurred in publishing the proposed amendments for comment.


text:
    STATE EX REL. MANGUN v. OLIVITO
    2018-1204
    Supreme Court of Ohio.
    October 19, 2018
    CASE ANNOUNCEMENTS
    MISCELLANEOUS ORDERS
    In Mandamus. Cause returned to the regular docket under S.Ct.Prac.R. 19.01. Respondent ordered to file a response to the complaint within 21 days. Relator's amended motion to lift stay denied as moot.


text:
    STATE EX REL. CARLSON v. OHIO STATE BD. OF PHARMACY
    2018-1264
    Supreme Court of Ohio.
    October 19, 2018
    CASE ANNOUNCEMENTS
    MISCELLANEOUS DISMISSALS
    On appellant's application for dismissal. Application granted. Cause dismissed.


text:
    ROCK v. BRACY
    2018-1140
    Supreme Court of Ohio.
    October 19, 2018
    CASE ANNOUNCEMENTS
    MISCELLANEOUS ORDERS
    On appellant's memorandum in support of jurisdiction. This cause originated in the court of appeals and should proceed as an appeal of right pursuant to S.Ct.Prac.R. 5.01. The clerk shall issue an order for the transmission of the record from the Court of Appeals for Trumbull County, and the parties shall otherwise proceed in accordance with S.Ct.Prac.R. 16.02 through 16.07.


text:
    STATE EX REL. PACHECO v. INDUS. COMM.
    2018-0118
    Supreme Court of Ohio.
    October 18, 2018
    CASE ANNOUNCEMENTS
    MOTION AND PROCEDURAL RULINGS
   On consideration of joint motion to consolidate case with case No. 2018-0099. Motion granted. For all further briefs to be filed in case Nos. 2018-0099 and 2018-0118, the parties are ordered to file two originals of each of the briefs permitted under S.Ct.Prac.R. 16.02 through 16.04 and include both case numbers on the cover pages of the briefs. The parties shall otherwise comply with the requirements of S.Ct.Prac.R. 16.01 through 16.04.


text:
    STATE EX REL. PACHECO v. INDUS. COMM.
    2018-0099
    Supreme Court of Ohio.
    October 18, 2018
    CASE ANNOUNCEMENTS
    MOTION AND PROCEDURAL RULINGS
   On consideration of joint motion to consolidate case with case No. 2018-0118. Motion granted. For all further briefs to be filed in case Nos. 2018-0099 and 2018-0118, the parties are ordered to file two originals of each of the briefs permitted under S.Ct.Prac.R. 16.02 through 16.04 and include both case numbers on the cover pages of the briefs. The parties shall otherwise comply with the requirements of S.Ct.Prac.R. 16.01 through 16.04.


text:
    STATE EX REL. RASAWEHR v. CELINA MUN. COURT
    2018-0989
    Supreme Court of Ohio.
    October 24, 2018
    CASE ANNOUNCEMENTS
    MERIT DECISIONS WITHOUT OPINIONS
    In Prohibition. On respondents' motion to dismiss. Motion granted. Cause dismissed.
    O'Connor, C.J., and O'Donnell, Kennedy, French, Fischer, DeWine, and DeGenaro, JJ., concur.


text:
    DE LONG v. ROBERSON
    2017-0943
    Supreme Court of Ohio.
    October 24, 2018
    CASE ANNOUNCEMENTS
    MERIT DECISIONS WITHOUT OPINIONS
    In Mandamus. On respondent's motion to dismiss. Motion granted. Cause dismissed.
    O'Connor, C.J., and O'Donnell, Kennedy, French, Fischer, DeWine, and DeGenaro, JJ., concur.


text:
    STATE EX REL. AVI FOOD SYS., INC. v. INDUS. COMM.
    2018-0019
    Supreme Court of Ohio.
    October 23, 2018
    CASE ANNOUNCEMENTS
    MISCELLANEOUS DISMISSALS
    On appellant's application for dismissal. Application granted. Cause dismissed.


text:
    STATE EX REL. MANGUN v. OLIVITO
    2018-1204
    Supreme Court of Ohio.
    October 23, 2018
    CASE ANNOUNCEMENTS
    MISCELLANEOUS DISMISSALS
    In Mandamus. On relator's application for dismissal. Application granted. Cause dismissed.


text:
    STATE v. DANGLER
    2017-1703
    Supreme Court of Ohio.
    October 23, 2018
    CASE ANNOUNCEMENTS
    MOTION AND PROCEDURAL RULINGS
   On consideration of joint motion for continuance of oral argument. Motion granted. Cause rescheduled for oral argument on Wednesday, February 20, 2019.


text:
    STATE v. HART
    2018-1384
    Supreme Court of Ohio.
    October 23, 2018
    CASE ANNOUNCEMENTS
    MOTION AND PROCEDURAL RULINGS
   On appellee's motion for court-appointed counsel and permission to withdraw as counsel. Motion granted. The Ohio Public Defender's Office is appointed to represent appellee, and appellee shall file a memorandum in response to jurisdiction and an affidavit of indigence within 30 days.


text:
    STATE EX REL. SWANSON v. DEPT. OF REHAB. & CORR.
    2018-1492
    Supreme Court of Ohio.
    October 23, 2018
    CASE ANNOUNCEMENTS
    MOTION AND PROCEDURAL RULINGS
   On appellant's memorandum in support of jurisdiction. This cause originated in the court of appeals and should proceed as an appeal of right pursuant to S.Ct.Prac.R. 5.01. The clerk shall issue an order for the transmission of the record from the Court of Appeals for Franklin County, and the parties shall otherwise proceed in accordance with S.Ct.Prac.R. 16.02 through 16.07.


text:
    STATE EX REL. LIVINGSTON v. CHERRY
    2018-1432
    Supreme Court of Ohio.
    October 22, 2018
    CASE ANNOUNCEMENTS
    MERIT DECISIONS WITHOUT OPINIONS
    In Mandamus and Prohibition. Relator has not filed a merit brief, due October 18, 2018, and therefore has failed to prosecute this cause with the requisite diligence. Sua sponte, cause dismissed.


text:
    STATE v. WOGENSTAHL
    1995-0042
    Supreme Court of Ohio.
    October 24, 2018
    CASE ANNOUNCEMENTS
    MOTION AND PROCEDURAL RULINGS
   On appellant's motion to reopen direct appeal. Motion denied. Appellant's amended motion for clarification granted. Appellant's amended motion for extension of stay of execution granted. The stay shall remain in effect until exhaustion of all state postconviction proceedings, including any appeals.

French, J., would grant appellant's motion to reopen.

O'Connor, C.J., and Kennedy, J., would deny appellant's amended motion for clarification and appellant's amended motion for extension of stay of execution.

O'Donnell, J., would deny appellant's amended motion for extension of stay of execution.

Donna J. Carr, J., of the Ninth District Court of Appeals, sitting for Fischer, J.

Eileen T. Gallagher, J., of the Eighth District Court of Appeals, sitting for DeWine, J.


text:
    STATE EX REL. FREED v. DISCIPLINARY COUNSEL
    2018-0609
    Supreme Court of Ohio.
    October 24, 2018
    CASE ANNOUNCEMENTS
    MOTION AND PROCEDURAL RULINGS
   In Mandamus. On relator's motion for articulation and motion for Ohio Constitution, Article IV, Section 2 (C) "reasons therefor." Motions denied. Respondent's motion to strike motion for articulation denied.


text:
    DIXON v. BORCHERT
    2018-1103
    Supreme Court of Ohio.
    October 24, 2018
    CASE ANNOUNCEMENTS
    MERIT DECISIONS WITHOUT OPINIONS
    In Mandamus. On respondent's motion to dismiss. Motion granted. Cause dismissed.
    O'Connor, C.J., and O'Donnell, Kennedy, French, Fischer, DeWine, and DeGenaro, JJ., concur.


text:
    STATE EX REL. GREEN v. STATE
    2018-1215
    Supreme Court of Ohio.
    October 24, 2018
    CASE ANNOUNCEMENTS
    MERIT DECISIONS WITHOUT OPINIONS
    In Mandamus. On respondent's motion to dismiss. Motion granted. Cause dismissed.
    O'Connor, C.J., and O'Donnell, Kennedy, French, Fischer, DeWine, and DeGenaro, JJ., concur.


text:
    STATE EX REL. MCBROOM v. GERTMENIAN
    2018-1163
    Supreme Court of Ohio.
    October 24, 2018
    CASE ANNOUNCEMENTS
    MERIT DECISIONS WITHOUT OPINIONS
    In Mandamus. On respondents' motion to dismiss. Motion granted. Cause dismissed. Relator's motion to strike motion to dismiss denied.
    O'Connor, C.J., and O'Donnell, Kennedy, French, Fischer, DeWine, and DeGenaro, JJ., concur.


text:
    STATE EX REL. BRITFORD v. SCHNEIDER
    2018-1218
    Supreme Court of Ohio.
    October 24, 2018
    CASE ANNOUNCEMENTS
    MERIT DECISIONS WITHOUT OPINIONS
    In Mandamus. On respondent's motion to dismiss. Motion granted. Cause dismissed.
    O'Connor, C.J., and O'Donnell, Kennedy, French, Fischer, DeWine, and DeGenaro, JJ., concur.


text:
    PISHOK v. EPPINGER
    2018-1098
    Supreme Court of Ohio.
    October 24, 2018
    CASE ANNOUNCEMENTS
    MERIT DECISIONS WITHOUT OPINIONS
    In Habeas Corpus. Sua sponte, cause dismissed.
    O'Connor, C.J., and O'Donnell, French, Fischer, DeWine, and DeGenaro, JJ., concur.
    Kennedy, J., dissents and would deny the petition.


text:
    MASON v. CHIEF INSPECTOR, DEPT. OF REHAB. & CORR.
    2018-1130
    Supreme Court of Ohio.
    October 24, 2018
    CASE ANNOUNCEMENTS
    MERIT DECISIONS WITHOUT OPINIONS
    In Mandamus. On relator's motion for leave to amend cause caption. Motion granted. Respondent's motion to dismiss denied. Sua sponte, alternative writ granted. The following briefing schedule is set for presentation of evidence and filing of briefs pursuant to S.Ct.Prac.R. 12.05: The parties shall file any evidence they intend to present within 20 days, relator shall file a brief within 10 days after the filing of the evidence, respondent shall file a brief within 20 days after the filing of relator's brief, and relator may file a reply brief within 7 days after the filing of respondent's brief.
    O'Connor, C.J., and O'Donnell, French, Fischer, DeWine, and DeGenaro, JJ., concur.
    Kennedy, J., dissents from the granting of an alternative writ and would order respondent to file an answer in accordance with the Rules of Practice.


text:
    STATE EX REL. WILLIAMS v. RICHARDS
    2018-1250
    Supreme Court of Ohio.
    October 24, 2018
    CASE ANNOUNCEMENTS
    MERIT DECISIONS WITHOUT OPINIONS
    In Habeas Corpus. Sua sponte, cause dismissed.
    O'Connor, C.J., and O'Donnell, Kennedy, French, Fischer, DeWine, and DeGenaro, JJ., concur.


text:
    DRUKTENIS v. EPPINGER
    2018-1259
    Supreme Court of Ohio.
    October 24, 2018
    CASE ANNOUNCEMENTS
    MERIT DECISIONS WITHOUT OPINIONS
    In Habeas Corpus. Sua sponte, cause dismissed.
    O'Connor, C.J., and O'Donnell, Kennedy, French, Fischer, DeWine, and DeGenaro, JJ., concur.


text:
    BROOKS v. EPPINGER
    2018-1289
    Supreme Court of Ohio.
    October 24, 2018
    CASE ANNOUNCEMENTS
    MERIT DECISIONS WITHOUT OPINIONS
    In Habeas Corpus. Sua sponte, cause dismissed.
    O'Connor, C.J., and O'Donnell, Kennedy, French, Fischer, DeWine, and DeGenaro, JJ., concur.


text:
    STATE v. IVERY
    2018-1208
    Supreme Court of Ohio.
    October 24, 2018
    CASE ANNOUNCEMENTS
    MOTION AND PROCEDURAL RULINGS
   On motion for leave to file delayed appeal. Motion granted. Appellant shall file a memorandum in support of jurisdiction within 30 days.


text:
    STATE v. RUCKER
    2018-1245
    Supreme Court of Ohio.
    October 24, 2018
    CASE ANNOUNCEMENTS
    MOTION AND PROCEDURAL RULINGS
   On motion for leave to file delayed appeal. Motion denied.


text:
    STATE v. CLIFFORD
    2018-1249
    Supreme Court of Ohio.
    October 24, 2018
    CASE ANNOUNCEMENTS
    MOTION AND PROCEDURAL RULINGS
   On motion for leave to file delayed appeal. Motion denied.

Kennedy and Fischer, JJ., dissent.


text:
    STATE v. DILO
    2018-1257
    Supreme Court of Ohio.
    October 24, 2018
    CASE ANNOUNCEMENTS
    MOTION AND PROCEDURAL RULINGS
   On motion for leave to file delayed appeal. Motion denied.

O'Donnell, Kennedy, and DeWine, JJ., dissent.


text:
    STATE v. CLEMENTS
    2018-1270
    Supreme Court of Ohio.
    October 24, 2018
    CASE ANNOUNCEMENTS
    MOTION AND PROCEDURAL RULINGS
   On motion for leave to file delayed appeal. Motion granted. Appellant shall file a memorandum in support of jurisdiction within 30 days.

O'Connor, C.J., and French and Fischer, JJ., dissent.


text:
    STATE v. FOX
    2018-0920
    Supreme Court of Ohio.
    October 24, 2018
    CASE ANNOUNCEMENTS
    MOTION AND PROCEDURAL RULINGS
   On appellant's motion to lift stay. Motion denied.


text:
    STATE v. DORNOFF
    2018-1125
    Supreme Court of Ohio.
    October 24, 2018
    CASE ANNOUNCEMENTS
    MOTION AND PROCEDURAL RULINGS
   On review of an order certifying a conflict. The court determines that a conflict exists. Sua sponte, cause held for the decision in 2017-1703, State v. Dangler, and briefing schedule stayed.


text:
    BUDDENBERG v. WEISDACK
    2018-1209
    Supreme Court of Ohio.
    October 24, 2018
    CASE ANNOUNCEMENTS
    MOTION AND PROCEDURAL RULINGS
   Certified Question of State Law, United States District Court, Northern District of Ohio, Eastern Division, No. 1:18-CV-00522. On review of preliminary memoranda. The court will answer the following questions: "Does [R.C.] 2307.60's creation of a civil cause of action for injuries based on a 'criminal act' require an underlying criminal conviction?" "Is a criminal conviction a condition precedent to a civil claim pursuant to [R.C.] 2921.03 ?"

Petitioners shall file their merit brief within 40 days, and the parties shall otherwise proceed in accordance with S.Ct.Prac.R. 9.07 and 16.02 through 16.04.


text:
    STATE v. RAMSEY
    2018-1225
    Supreme Court of Ohio.
    October 24, 2018
    CASE ANNOUNCEMENTS
    MOTION AND PROCEDURAL RULINGS
   On review of an order certifying a conflict. The court determines that a conflict exists. Sua sponte, cause held for the decision in 2018-0312, State v. Davis, and briefing schedule stayed.

Fischer and DeWine, JJ., dissent.


text:
    STATE v. MILLER
    2018-0948
    Supreme Court of Ohio.
    October 24, 2018
    CASE ANNOUNCEMENTS
    APPEALS ACCEPTED FOR REVIEW
    O'Connor, C.J., and French and DeWine, JJ., dissent.
   Lisa L. Sadler, J., of the Tenth District Court of Appeals, sitting for DeGenaro, J.


text:
    WALSH v. WALSH
    2018-1073
    Supreme Court of Ohio.
    October 24, 2018
    CASE ANNOUNCEMENTS
    APPEALS ACCEPTED FOR REVIEW
    O'Connor, C.J., and French and DeWine, JJ., dissent.


text:
    BLACK v. HICKS
    2018-1062
    Supreme Court of Ohio.
    October 24, 2018
    CASE ANNOUNCEMENTS
    APPEALS NOT ACCEPTED FOR REVIEW
    French and DeGenaro, JJ., dissent and would accept the appeal on proposition of law Nos. II and III.


text:
    STATE v. RAMSEY
    2018-1071
    Supreme Court of Ohio.
    October 24, 2018
    CASE ANNOUNCEMENTS
    APPEALS NOT ACCEPTED FOR REVIEW
    O'Donnell, French, and Fischer, JJ., dissent.


text:
    STATE v. SHANK
    2018-1196
    Supreme Court of Ohio.
    October 24, 2018
    CASE ANNOUNCEMENTS
    MOTION AND PROCEDURAL RULINGS
   On motion for leave to file delayed appeal. Motion denied.


text:
    D & L FERGUSON, L.L.C. v. THOMPSON
    2018-1118
    Supreme Court of Ohio.
    October 24, 2018
    CASE ANNOUNCEMENTS
    APPEALS NOT ACCEPTED FOR REVIEW
    O'Donnell and Fischer, JJ., dissent.


text:
    REDMAN v. SHEWARD
    2018-1119
    Supreme Court of Ohio.
    October 24, 2018
    CASE ANNOUNCEMENTS
    APPEALS NOT ACCEPTED FOR REVIEW


text:
    ETHERIDGE v. ETHERIDGE
    2018-1123
    Supreme Court of Ohio.
    October 24, 2018
    CASE ANNOUNCEMENTS
    APPEALS NOT ACCEPTED FOR REVIEW


text:
    SMITH v. WYANDOT MEM. HOSP.
    2018-1124
    Supreme Court of Ohio.
    October 24, 2018
    CASE ANNOUNCEMENTS
    APPEALS NOT ACCEPTED FOR REVIEW
    O'Donnell, French, and DeGenaro, JJ., dissent.


text:
    STATE v. COPE
    2018-1126
    Supreme Court of Ohio.
    October 24, 2018
    CASE ANNOUNCEMENTS
    APPEALS NOT ACCEPTED FOR REVIEW


text:
    KB RESOURCES, L.L.C. v. PATRIOT ENERGY PARTNERS, L.L.C.
    2018-1127
    Supreme Court of Ohio.
    October 24, 2018
    CASE ANNOUNCEMENTS
    APPEALS NOT ACCEPTED FOR REVIEW


text:
    STATE v. NAPLES
    2018-1132
    Supreme Court of Ohio.
    October 24, 2018
    CASE ANNOUNCEMENTS
    APPEALS NOT ACCEPTED FOR REVIEW
    French and DeGenaro, JJ., dissent.


text:
    PAYSON v. HENNESSEY
    2018-1133
    Supreme Court of Ohio.
    October 24, 2018
    CASE ANNOUNCEMENTS
    APPEALS NOT ACCEPTED FOR REVIEW


text:
    STATE v. DARR
    2018-1139
    Supreme Court of Ohio.
    October 24, 2018
    CASE ANNOUNCEMENTS
    APPEALS NOT ACCEPTED FOR REVIEW


author: O'Connor, C.J., dissents.

text:
    NATIONWIDE MUT. FIRE INS. CO. v. PUSSER
    2018-1137
    Supreme Court of Ohio.
    October 24, 2018
    CASE ANNOUNCEMENTS
    APPEALS ACCEPTED FOR REVIEW
   O'Connor, C.J., dissents.


text:
    STATE v. RUTHERFORD
    2018-1083
    Supreme Court of Ohio.
    October 24, 2018
    CASE ANNOUNCEMENTS
    APPEALS NOT ACCEPTED FOR REVIEW


text:
    STATE v. HARPER
    2018-1144
    Supreme Court of Ohio.
    October 24, 2018
    CASE ANNOUNCEMENTS
    APPEALS ACCEPTED FOR REVIEW
    O'Connor, C.J., and Kennedy and Fischer, JJ., dissent.


text:
    STATE v. STRALEY
    2018-1176
    Supreme Court of Ohio.
    October 24, 2018
    CASE ANNOUNCEMENTS
    APPEALS ACCEPTED FOR REVIEW
    Kennedy, French, and Fischer, JJ., dissent.


text:
    STATE v. CARTER
    2018-0764
    Supreme Court of Ohio.
    October 24, 2018
    CASE ANNOUNCEMENTS
    APPEALS NOT ACCEPTED FOR REVIEW


text:
    N. RIDGEVILLE v. ROTH
    2018-0991
    Supreme Court of Ohio.
    October 24, 2018
    CASE ANNOUNCEMENTS
    APPEALS NOT ACCEPTED FOR REVIEW


author: French, J., dissents.

text:
    STATE v. JENKINS
    2018-1074
    Supreme Court of Ohio.
    October 24, 2018
    CASE ANNOUNCEMENTS
    APPEALS NOT ACCEPTED FOR REVIEW
   French, J., dissents.

DeGenaro, J., not participating.


text:
    STATE v. STEIN
    2018-1075
    Supreme Court of Ohio.
    October 24, 2018
    CASE ANNOUNCEMENTS
    APPEALS NOT ACCEPTED FOR REVIEW


text:
    STATE v. SMITH
    2018-1078
    Supreme Court of Ohio.
    October 24, 2018
    CASE ANNOUNCEMENTS
    APPEALS NOT ACCEPTED FOR REVIEW


author: DeGenaro, J., not participating

text:
    STATE v. MIDDLETON
    2018-1080
    Supreme Court of Ohio.
    October 24, 2018
    CASE ANNOUNCEMENTS
    APPEALS NOT ACCEPTED FOR REVIEW
   DeGenaro, J., not participating


text:
    JAMES v. HOFFMAN
    2018-1086
    Supreme Court of Ohio.
    October 24, 2018
    CASE ANNOUNCEMENTS
    APPEALS NOT ACCEPTED FOR REVIEW
    O'Donnell, French, and Fischer, JJ., dissent.


text:
    COPEN v. CRW, INC.
    2018-1089
    Supreme Court of Ohio.
    October 24, 2018
    CASE ANNOUNCEMENTS
    APPEALS NOT ACCEPTED FOR REVIEW


text:
    JUSTICE v. SCHELL
    2018-1093
    Supreme Court of Ohio.
    October 24, 2018
    CASE ANNOUNCEMENTS
    APPEALS NOT ACCEPTED FOR REVIEW


author: DeGenaro, J., not participating.

text:
    RBS CITIZENS NA v. SHARP
    2018-1106
    Supreme Court of Ohio.
    October 24, 2018
    CASE ANNOUNCEMENTS
    APPEALS NOT ACCEPTED FOR REVIEW
    French and Fischer, JJ., dissent.
   DeGenaro, J., not participating.


author: O'Donnell, J., not participating.

text:
    BOGGS v. DENMEAD
    2018-1107
    Supreme Court of Ohio.
    October 24, 2018
    CASE ANNOUNCEMENTS
    APPEALS NOT ACCEPTED FOR REVIEW
   O'Donnell, J., not participating.


text:
    STATE v. WEAVER
    2018-1109
    Supreme Court of Ohio.
    October 24, 2018
    CASE ANNOUNCEMENTS
    APPEALS NOT ACCEPTED FOR REVIEW
    Fischer and DeGenaro, JJ., dissent and would accept the appeal on proposition of law No. III.


text:
    STATE v. HADDIX
    2018-1114
    Supreme Court of Ohio.
    October 24, 2018
    CASE ANNOUNCEMENTS
    APPEALS NOT ACCEPTED FOR REVIEW


text:
    STATE v. DIGGS
    2018-1115
    Supreme Court of Ohio.
    October 24, 2018
    CASE ANNOUNCEMENTS
    APPEALS NOT ACCEPTED FOR REVIEW


text:
    STATE v. GRIFFIN
    2018-1160
    Supreme Court of Ohio.
    October 24, 2018
    CASE ANNOUNCEMENTS
    APPEALS NOT ACCEPTED FOR REVIEW


text:
    STATE v. ADKINS
    2018-1164
    Supreme Court of Ohio.
    October 24, 2018
    CASE ANNOUNCEMENTS
    APPEALS NOT ACCEPTED FOR REVIEW


text:
    GMAC MTGE., L.L.C. v. GIULIANO
    2018-1165
    Supreme Court of Ohio.
    October 24, 2018
    CASE ANNOUNCEMENTS
    APPEALS NOT ACCEPTED FOR REVIEW
    French, J., dissents and would accept the appeal on proposition of law No. I.


text:
    STATE v. REMY
    2018-1166
    Supreme Court of Ohio.
    October 24, 2018
    CASE ANNOUNCEMENTS
    APPEALS NOT ACCEPTED FOR REVIEW


text:
    STATE v. HATHAWAY
    2018-1169
    Supreme Court of Ohio.
    October 24, 2018
    CASE ANNOUNCEMENTS
    APPEALS NOT ACCEPTED FOR REVIEW


text:
    THOMAS v. DEPT. OF JOB & FAMILY SERVS.
    2018-1175
    Supreme Court of Ohio.
    October 24, 2018
    CASE ANNOUNCEMENTS
    APPEALS NOT ACCEPTED FOR REVIEW


text:
    STATE v. BARKER
    2018-1184
    Supreme Court of Ohio.
    October 24, 2018
    CASE ANNOUNCEMENTS
    APPEALS NOT ACCEPTED FOR REVIEW


text:
    STATE v. JOHNSON
    2018-1192
    Supreme Court of Ohio.
    October 24, 2018
    CASE ANNOUNCEMENTS
    APPEALS NOT ACCEPTED FOR REVIEW


text:
    STATE v. YOUNG
    2018-1234
    Supreme Court of Ohio.
    October 24, 2018
    CASE ANNOUNCEMENTS
    APPEALS NOT ACCEPTED FOR REVIEW


text:
    STATE v. CODY
    2018-1240
    Supreme Court of Ohio.
    October 24, 2018
    CASE ANNOUNCEMENTS
    APPEALS NOT ACCEPTED FOR REVIEW


text:
    UNIFUND CCR PARTNERS v. PIASER
    2018-1142
    Supreme Court of Ohio.
    October 24, 2018
    CASE ANNOUNCEMENTS
    APPEALS NOT ACCEPTED FOR REVIEW
    O'Donnell, Kennedy, and Fischer, JJ., dissent.


text:
    STATE v. VARGAS
    2018-1247
    Supreme Court of Ohio.
    October 24, 2018
    CASE ANNOUNCEMENTS
    APPEALS NOT ACCEPTED FOR REVIEW
   DeGenaro, J., not participating.


text:
    STATE v. NICHOLSON
    2018-1271
    Supreme Court of Ohio.
    October 24, 2018
    CASE ANNOUNCEMENTS
    APPEALS NOT ACCEPTED FOR REVIEW
   DeGenaro, J., not participating.


author: O'Donnell, J., dissents.

text:
    MENTCH v. CUYAHOGA CTY. PUB. LIBRARY BD.
    2018-0742
    Supreme Court of Ohio.
    October 24, 2018
    CASE ANNOUNCEMENTS
    RECONSIDERATION OF PRIOR DECISIONS
    On appellant's motion for reconsideration. Motion denied.
   O'Donnell, J., dissents.


text:
    STATE v. SCHOENLEIN
    2018-0807
    Supreme Court of Ohio.
    October 24, 2018
    CASE ANNOUNCEMENTS
    RECONSIDERATION OF PRIOR DECISIONS
    On appellant's motion for reconsideration. Motion denied.


text:
    U.S. BANK NATL. ASSN. v. CONRAD
    2018-0834
    Supreme Court of Ohio.
    October 24, 2018
    CASE ANNOUNCEMENTS
    RECONSIDERATION OF PRIOR DECISIONS
    On appellant's motion for reconsideration. Motion denied. Appellant's second motion for immediate stay of lower court's decision denied.


text:
    STATE v. HAWTHORNE
    2018-0838
    Supreme Court of Ohio.
    October 24, 2018
    CASE ANNOUNCEMENTS
    RECONSIDERATION OF PRIOR DECISIONS
    On appellant's motion for reconsideration. Motion denied.
    O'Donnell and Kennedy, JJ., dissent.


text:
    STATE v. LEE
    2018-0850
    Supreme Court of Ohio.
    October 24, 2018
    CASE ANNOUNCEMENTS
    RECONSIDERATION OF PRIOR DECISIONS
    On appellant's motion for reconsideration. Motion denied.
    French and DeWine, JJ., dissent.
   DeGenaro, J., not participating


author: Fischer, J., not participating.

text:
    STATE v. HARRIS
    2018-0946
    Supreme Court of Ohio.
    October 24, 2018
    CASE ANNOUNCEMENTS
    RECONSIDERATION OF PRIOR DECISIONS
    On appellant's motion for reconsideration. Motion denied.
   Fischer, J., not participating.


text:
    PRIMM v. STAMMITTI
    2018-1145
    Supreme Court of Ohio.
    October 24, 2018
    CASE ANNOUNCEMENTS
    APPEALS NOT ACCEPTED FOR REVIEW
    O'Donnell and Fischer, JJ., dissent.


text:
    MULDOWNEY v. PORTAGE CTY. BD. OF COMMRS.
    2018-1146
    Supreme Court of Ohio.
    October 24, 2018
    CASE ANNOUNCEMENTS
    APPEALS NOT ACCEPTED FOR REVIEW


text:
    STATE v. FISHER
    2018-1149
    Supreme Court of Ohio.
    October 24, 2018
    CASE ANNOUNCEMENTS
    APPEALS NOT ACCEPTED FOR REVIEW


text:
    STATE v. WESTERFIELD
    2018-1150
    Supreme Court of Ohio.
    October 24, 2018
    CASE ANNOUNCEMENTS
    APPEALS NOT ACCEPTED FOR REVIEW


text:
    HOOKS v. HOOKS
    2018-1153
    Supreme Court of Ohio.
    October 24, 2018
    CASE ANNOUNCEMENTS
    APPEALS NOT ACCEPTED FOR REVIEW


text:
    STATE v. STOUT
    2018-1155
    Supreme Court of Ohio.
    October 24, 2018
    CASE ANNOUNCEMENTS
    APPEALS NOT ACCEPTED FOR REVIEW


text:
    MCKIDDY v. MCKIDDY
    2018-1158
    Supreme Court of Ohio.
    October 24, 2018
    CASE ANNOUNCEMENTS
    APPEALS NOT ACCEPTED FOR REVIEW


text:
    BELLAIRE CORP. v. AM. EMPIRE SURPLUS LINES INS. CO.
    2018-1159
    Supreme Court of Ohio.
    October 24, 2018
    CASE ANNOUNCEMENTS
    APPEALS NOT ACCEPTED FOR REVIEW


text:
    STATE EX REL. GODALE v. ELEVENTH DIST. COURT OF APPEALS
    2018-0892
    Supreme Court of Ohio.
    October 25, 2018
    CASE ANNOUNCEMENTS
    MOTION AND PROCEDURAL RULINGS
   In Mandamus. On respondent's motion to dismiss amended complaint. Motion denied as moot.


text:
    STATE EX REL. NAVISTAR, INC. v. INDUS. COMM.
    2018-1416
    Supreme Court of Ohio.
    October 25, 2018
    CASE ANNOUNCEMENTS
    MEDIATION MATTERS
    The following cases have been referred to mediation under S.Ct.Prac.R. 19.01.


text:
    STATE EX REL. SANDS v. COURT OF COMMON PLEAS
    2017-1700
    Supreme Court of Ohio.
    October 25, 2018
    CASE ANNOUNCEMENTS
    MOTION AND PROCEDURAL RULINGS
   On appellant's motion to strike appellee's merit brief and motion for oral argument. Motions denied as moot.


text:
    STATE EX REL. KEITH v. ADULT PAROLE AUTHORITY
    2018-0247
    Supreme Court of Ohio.
    October 25, 2018
    CASE ANNOUNCEMENTS
    MOTION AND PROCEDURAL RULINGS
   On appellant's motion to proceed to judgment. Motion denied as moot.


text:
    STATE EX REL. HOBART v. INDUS. COMM.
    2018-1241
    Supreme Court of Ohio.
    October 25, 2018
    CASE ANNOUNCEMENTS
    MOTION AND PROCEDURAL RULINGS
   Pursuant to R.C. 2710.06(B)(1), the court has been notified that the parties in this case have reached a settlement. The case is returned to the regular docket under S.Ct.Prac.R. 19.01. Within 60 days, appellant shall file an application for dismissal or file a merit brief in accordance with Supreme Court Rules of Practice. This case will be dismissed for want of prosecution if an application for dismissal or merit brief is not filed within 60 days.


text:
    STATE EX REL. HUNTER v. DEPT. OF EDN.
    2018-1383
    Supreme Court of Ohio.
    October 25, 2018
    CASE ANNOUNCEMENTS
    MEDIATION MATTERS
    In Mandamus.
    The following cases have been referred to mediation under S.Ct.Prac.R. 19.01.


text:
    STATE EX REL. PUREVAL v. ELECTIONS COMM.
    2018-1523
    Supreme Court of Ohio.
    October 24, 2018
    CASE ANNOUNCEMENTS
    MISCELLANEOUS ORDERS
    Sua sponte, appellee ordered to file a response to appellants' emergency motion for an alternative writ setting an expedited response schedule, motion to stay proceedings in Ohio Elections Commission case No. 2018G-022 and/or motion for an injunction pending a final decision no later than 12:00 p.m. on Friday, October 26, 2018.


text:
    MCADAMS v. GOLDBERG
    2018-1113
    Supreme Court of Ohio.
    October 24, 2018
    CASE ANNOUNCEMENTS
    MEDIATION MATTERS
    In Prohibition. Motion to lift stay denied as moot.
    The following case has been returned to the regular docket under S.Ct.Prac.R. 19.01.


text:
    STATE v. SHUTES
    2018-1052
    Supreme Court of Ohio.
    October 31, 2018
    CASE ANNOUNCEMENTS
    MISCELLANEOUS DISMISSALS
    Appellant has not filed a memorandum in support of jurisdiction, due October 26, 2018, and therefore has failed to prosecute this cause with the requisite diligence. Sua sponte, cause dismissed.


text:
    STATE v. SMITH
    2018-1078
    Supreme Court of Ohio.
    October 30, 2018
    CASE ANNOUNCEMENTS
    MOTION AND PROCEDURAL RULINGS
   On appellee's motion to strike. Motion denied as moot.


text:
    IN RE Application of OHIO POWER CO.
    2018-1396
    Supreme Court of Ohio.
    October 30, 2018
    CASE ANNOUNCEMENTS
    MOTION AND PROCEDURAL RULINGS
   On motion of Ohio Power Company for leave to intervene as appellee. Motion granted.


text:
    STATE EX REL. HIGGINS v. MCCARTY
    2018-1298
    Supreme Court of Ohio.
    October 29, 2018
    CASE ANNOUNCEMENTS
    MISCELLANEOUS DISMISSALS
    In Mandamus and Procedendo. On relator's application for dismissal.
    Application granted. Cause dismissed.


text:
    STATE EX REL. PUREVAL v. ELECTIONS COMM.
    2018-1523
    Supreme Court of Ohio.
    October 29, 2018
    CASE ANNOUNCEMENTS
    MISCELLANEOUS DISMISSALS
    On appellants' application for dismissal. Application granted. Cause dismissed.


text:
    DISCIPLINARY COUNSEL v. GOLD
    2017-1411
    Supreme Court of Ohio.
    October 26, 2018
    CASE ANNOUNCEMENTS
    DISCIPLINARY CASES
    Sua sponte, John Walter Gold, Attorney Registration No. 0078414, last known business address in Westlake, Ohio, found in contempt for failure to surrender his attorney-registration card and failure to file an affidavit of compliance on or before September 13, 2018.


text:
    STATE v. CARR
    2018-1486
    Supreme Court of Ohio.
    October 31, 2018
    CASE ANNOUNCEMENTS
    MOTION AND PROCEDURAL RULINGS
   On appellant's motion for stay. Motion denied.

O'Donnell, Fischer, and DeGenaro, JJ., dissent.