[Until this opinion appears in the Ohio Official Reports advance sheets, it may be cited as Columbus Bar Assn. v. Christensen and Kluesener, Slip Opinion No. 2020-Ohio-167.] 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. 2020-OHIO-167 COLUMBUS BAR ASSOCIATION v. CHRISTENSEN AND KLUESENER. [Until this opinion appears in the Ohio Official Reports advance sheets, it may be cited as Columbus Bar Assn. v. Christensen and Kluesener, Slip Opinion No. 2020-Ohio-167.] Attorneys—Misconduct—Violations of the Rules of Professional Conduct—Public reprimand (Christensen)—Conditionally stayed one-year suspension (Kluesener). (No. 2019-0802—Submitted July 9, 2019—Decided January 23, 2020.) ON CERTIFIED REPORT by the Board of Professional Conduct of the Supreme Court, No. 2018-070. _______________________ Per Curiam. {¶ 1} This attorney-discipline case involves two attorneys. The first respondent, Michael Dean Christensen, of Columbus, Ohio, Attorney Registration No. 0071612, was admitted to the practice of law in Ohio in 1999. Christensen has no prior disciplinary offenses. SUPREME COURT OF OHIO {¶ 2} The second respondent, Jeffrey Thomas Kluesener, of Columbus, Ohio, Attorney Registration No. 0087256, was admitted to the practice of law in Ohio in 2011. Since becoming a lawyer, Kluesener has worked for Christensen’s law firm, the Law Offices of Michael D. Christensen. In June 2017, we imposed a conditionally stayed six-month suspension on Kluesener for neglecting and failing to provide competent representation in a client’s product-liability case. Columbus Bar Assn. v. Kluesener, 150 Ohio St.3d 322, 2017-Ohio-4417, 81 N.E.3d 457. {¶ 3} In December 2018, relator, Columbus Bar Association, separately charged Christensen and Kluesener with professional misconduct for issuing invalid prelawsuit subpoenas as a method of obtaining information during the investigation stage of potential civil actions. The Board of Professional Conduct considered the case on the parties’ consent-to-discipline agreements. See Gov.Bar R. V(16). For the reasons explained below, we accept the parties’ agreements and recommended sanctions. Misconduct {¶ 4} In their agreements, the parties stipulated to the following facts. On at least seven occasions, Christensen sent invalid subpoenas to opposing parties seeking information about potential personal-injury actions, even though Christensen had not yet filed a lawsuit or an R.C. 2317.48 action for discovery regarding any of those matters. Kluesener, while employed by Christensen, sent at least six invalid subpoenas under similar circumstances. Respondents issued the “subpoenas” on preprinted Civ.R. 45 forms that either included the word “pending” in the space provided for a case number or left that space blank. The forms also included language threatening the recipients with contempt or other sanctions for failure to comply. {¶ 5} Respondents admit that they used the invalid subpoenas as a way to obtain litigation-related materials when a letter requesting such materials may not have been successful. For example, ...
Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals