[Until this opinion appears in the Ohio Official Reports advance sheets, it may be cited as Disciplinary Counsel v. Delay, Slip Opinion No. 2019-Ohio-2955.] 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. 2019-OHIO-2955 DISCIPLINARY COUNSEL v. DELAY. [Until this opinion appears in the Ohio Official Reports advance sheets, it may be cited as Disciplinary Counsel v. Delay, Slip Opinion No. 2019-Ohio-2955.] Attorneys—Misconduct—Violations of the Rules of Professional Conduct— Indefinite suspension. (No. 2018-1743—Submitted January 30, 2019—Decided July 23, 2019.) ON CERTIFIED REPORT by the Board of Professional Conduct of the Supreme Court, No. 2017-046. ______________ Per Curiam. {¶ 1} Respondent, Brendan Edward Delay, of Westlake, Ohio, Attorney Registration No. 0036929, was admitted to the practice of law in Ohio in 1986. {¶ 2} In an amended complaint filed with the Board of Professional Conduct on March 30, 2018, relator, disciplinary counsel, charged Delay with multiple violations of the Rules of Professional Conduct arising from his representation in four separate client matters. At a hearing before a panel of the SUPREME COURT OF OHIO board, the parties presented testimony from 14 witnesses, including Delay, and submitted more than 120 exhibits. {¶ 3} The panel issued a report containing findings of fact and misconduct and recommended that Delay be indefinitely suspended from the practice of law and ordered to make restitution to his clients in three of the cases. In addition, the panel recommended that as conditions on his reinstatement, Delay be required to submit to an Ohio Lawyers Assistance Program (“OLAP”) evaluation and comply with any treatment or counseling recommendations arising from that evaluation in addition to the requirements of Gov.Bar R. V(25). The board adopted the panel’s report in its entirety, and no objections have been filed. {¶ 4} After reviewing the record, we accept the board’s findings of fact and misconduct and indefinitely suspend Delay from the practice of law in Ohio. Misconduct Count One—The Karoub Matter {¶ 5} In September 2015, Adam Karoub paid Delay a flat fee of $2,500 to represent him in a breach-of-contract action filed against him in the Toledo Municipal Court. {¶ 6} Delay attended a court-ordered mediation in mid-October 2016 and sought two extensions of time to respond to the plaintiff’s October 28 motion for summary judgment. But Delay never responded to the motion, purportedly because Karoub had no legitimate defense. Delay testified that he sent a copy of the motion to Karoub, but Karoub and his business partner denied receiving it and the panel found their testimony to be more credible. {¶ 7} On December 30, the court granted summary judgment to the plaintiff and entered a $13,000 judgment against Karoub. Delay did ...
Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals