disciplinary handbook: volume v - Supreme Court - State of Ohio

Glaeser, Cuyahoga Cty. Bar Assn. v.
120 Ohio St.3d 350, 2008-Ohio-6199. Decided 12/4/2008.
Case Summaries- 99
Respondent was hired to file a lawsuit on behalf of his client, but failed to do so and lied to the client
(Bacon) about filing the suit and receiving a settlement. Bacon hired respondent in April 2004 to sue his
former building contractor. Respondent advised Bacon to sue the contractor‘s bonding company instead.
Respondent falsely told Bacon he had filed suit against the bonding company. In May 2006, respondent
advised Bacon that the bonding company had agreed to pay $300,000 to settle the claim, with $150,000
installments in June and November of that year. In June 2006, respondent told Bacon the owner of the
bonding company had been incarcerated and had not paid the first installment, but had been ordered by
the judge to pay $500 in sanctions for each day the owner failed to comply with the settlement
agreement. Respondent assured Bacon the bonding company‘s assets were frozen. Bacon later learned
that all of respondent‘s representations were untrue. Bacon discharged respondent in November 2006 and
requested the return of his case file. Respondent did not return the case file until the investigation of
Bacon‘s grievance. In late November 2007, respondent registered as an attorney on inactive status. A
master commissioner granted relator‘s motion for default. The board adopted the master commissioner‘s
findings and recommendations. The board found violations of DR 1-102(A)(4), (5), and (6), DR 6-
101(A)(3), DR 7-101(A)(1), (2), and (3), and DR 9-102(B)(4). The Supreme Court agreed. The court
noted in a footnote that the master commissioner and the board parenthetically misquoted the substance
of DR 9-102(B)(4) as (a lawyer shall maintain complete records of all funds coming into the possession of
the lawyer and render appropriate account to clients regarding them) rather than correctly as (a lawyer
shall promptly pay or deliver to a client as requested property that the client is entitled to receive).] In
aggravation, respondent was repeatedly dishonest and had not made restitution at the time of the
hearing. BCGD Proc.Reg. 10(B)(1)(b) and (i). In mitigation, respondent had no prior disciplinary
record. BCGD Proc.Reg. 10(B)(2)(a). It was also noted that respondent met with relator‘s investigator
despite experiencing serious health problems, including recent quadruple bypass surgery. Respondent
candidly admitted failing to file Bacon‘s complaint in 2004 and his misrepresentations. Respondent also
revealed that during his dealings with Bacon, he was recovering from his son‘s 2003 murder.
Respondent also noted that although he was in his 50s, he was admitted to the bar in 2003. The board
recommended an indefinite suspension from the practice of law. The Supreme Court disagreed. After
comparing cases of similar misconduct, Hickman (2005), Keller (2006), Novak (2006), the Supreme Court
ordered a two year suspension with the second year stayed on the conditions of restitution and no further
misconduct. One justice dissented in favor of indefinite suspension.
Rules Violated: DR 1-102(A)(4), 1-102(A)(5), 1-102(A)(6), 6-101(A)(3), 7-101(A)(1), 7-101(A)(2), 7-
101(A)(3), 9-102(B)(4)
Aggravation: (b), (i)
Mitigation: (a)
Prior Discipline: NO Procedure/ Process Issues: YES Criminal Conduct: NO
Public Official: NO Sanction: Two-year suspension, 12 months stayed