On Wednesday, October 16, 2024, the Supreme Court of Ohio suspended Cleveland attorney Jeffrey Charles Miller from practicing law for one year, with the full suspension stayed based on conditions.
The case is entitled “In the Matter of Jeffrey Charles Miller,” with case no. 2024-1101.
The charges cited Ohio Rules of Professional Conduct 1.4(a)(1), 1.4(a)(3), 1.3, 1.4(a)(2), 1.4(a)(4) and 8.4(c).
In a complaint filed on December 15, 2023, the disciplinary counsel accused Miller of professional misconduct for failure to communicate with a client and for falsely claiming to a government agency that another partner in his firm was representing a client.
The first count stemmed from Miller’s representation of clients Robert and Jennifer Ferns in a lawsuit against contractor Mark Price. Without consulting the Fernses, Miller agreed to dismiss their case against Price in March 2023. Miller then misled the clients by telling them the case was still pending and never disclosed he had agreed to dismiss it.
For this conduct, Miller violated professional rules requiring a lawyer to promptly inform clients of decisions requiring their consent and to keep them reasonably informed about the status of their legal matter.
The second count involved Miller’s representation of Alex Pratt in a lawsuit in Michigan, where Miller is not licensed to practice law. When the Michigan Liquor Control Commission requested documents from Miller regarding a separate matter involving Pratt’s company, Miller had a letter drafted using the name and signature of another attorney in his firm, Kathryn Hickner, without her permission. As a result, Miller was found to have violated a rule prohibiting conduct involving dishonesty, fraud, deceit, or misrepresentation.
The only aggravating factor was that Miller committed multiple offenses. Mitigating factors recognized by the Court included Miller having no prior disciplinary record, fully cooperating with the investigation, presenting evidence of his good character, and undergoing treatment for alcohol use disorder.
In considering the appropriate sanction, the Court compared Miller’s case to prior attorney discipline matters with similar misconduct that resulted in conditionally stayed one-year suspensions.
While dishonest conduct normally results in an actual suspension, the Court concluded Miller’s dishonesty appeared to be an isolated incident and that “an abundance of mitigating evidence” justified a less severe sanction.
The conditionally stayed one-year suspension requires Miller to commit no further misconduct and submit quarterly compliance reports from his treating healthcare professional for the next three years regarding his recovery from alcohol use disorder.
According to martindale.com, Mr. Miller attended the University of Notre Dame Law School, graduating in 1997. He acquired his law license in Ohio in the same year.
A copy of the original filing can be found here.
