[Until this opinion appears in the Ohio Official Reports advance sheets, it may be cited as Disciplinary Counsel v. Valenti, Slip Opinion No. 2021-Ohio-1373.] NOTICE This slip opinion is subject to formal revision before it is published in an advance sheet of the Ohio Official Reports. Readers are requested to promptly notify the Reporter of Decisions, Supreme Court of Ohio, 65 South Front Street, Columbus, Ohio 43215, of any typographical or other formal errors in the opinion, in order that corrections may be made before the opinion is published. SLIP OPINION NO. 2021-OHIO-1373 DISCIPLINARY COUNSEL v. VALENTI. [Until this opinion appears in the Ohio Official Reports advance sheets, it may be cited as Disciplinary Counsel v. Valenti, Slip Opinion No. 2021-Ohio-1373.] Attorneys—Misconduct—Violations of the Rules of Professional Conduct, including failing to provide competent representation to clients, failing to act with reasonable diligence in representing clients, and engaging in conduct prejudicial to the administration of justice—Six-month suspension stayed on conditions. (No. 2020-1519—Submitted January 27, 2021—Decided April 21, 2021.) ON CERTIFIED REPORT by the Board of Professional Conduct of the Supreme Court, No. 2020-010. _______________________ Per Curiam. {¶ 1} Respondent, Kimberly Anne Valenti, of Hudson, Ohio, Attorney Registration No. 0074624, was admitted to the practice of law in Ohio in 2002. SUPREME COURT OF OHIO {¶ 2} In February 2020, relator, disciplinary counsel, charged Valenti with failing to competently and diligently represent clients in three matters in which she had been appointed to serve as counsel. Although the parties entered into factual stipulations, Valenti denied that her conduct violated the professional-conduct rules, and the matter proceeded to a hearing before a three-member panel of the Board of Professional Conduct. The board issued a report finding that Valenti engaged in the charged misconduct and recommending that we impose a conditionally stayed six-month suspension. Neither party has objected to the board’s report and recommendation. {¶ 3} Based on our review of the record, we adopt the board’s findings of misconduct and recommended sanction, with one modification to the sanction. Misconduct The Doak matter {¶ 4} In April 2018, the Portage County Court of Common Pleas appointed Valenti to serve as appellate counsel for Richard B. Doak, who had been sentenced to life in prison without the possibility of parole. Doak’s appellate brief was originally due in August 2018, but Valenti sought and received three extensions of time. She nonetheless failed to file the brief by the October 22, 2018 deadline. On December 4, 2018, the Eleventh District Court of Appeals sua sponte ordered Valenti to file the brief within 14 days or show cause as to why the appeal should not be dismissed for failure to prosecute. Valenti filed the brief on December 19, 2018. She did not file a reply to the state’s merit brief. {¶ 5} On May 15, 2019, Valenti appeared for oral argument and informed the appellate panel that the parties intended to waive oral argument and stand on their briefs. One of the judges, however, expressed serious concerns about …
Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals