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

Henry, Disciplinary Counsel v.
127 Ohio St.3d 398, 2010-Ohio-6206. Decided 12/22/2010.
Case Summaries- 121
Respondent neglected client matters, failed to keep clients reasonably informed about the status of
their matters, failed to return unused fees and client documents, and failed to respond to the disciplinary
investigation. Respondent did not file an answer to the complaint. A master commissioner granted
relator‘s motion for default and made findings, conclusions, and a recommended sanction that were
adopted by the Board. In Count One, a father retained respondent to represent him in a custody matter
and paid respondent $600. Respondent filed a motion to designate the father as the sole residential parent
and legal custodian. The parties appeared for a hearing and advised the court an agreement had been
reached and that respondent would prepare an entry memorializing the agreement. Respondent failed
to submit a timely entry, so the court set another hearing. The father travelled to the hearing from his
home in Indianapolis, only to learn he was four days early because respondent had given him the
wrong date. The court denied respondent‘s motion for a continuance, and neither the parties nor their
attorneys appeared at the hearing. The court ordered the parties to submit a motion for a final hearing or
and agreed entry. When they failed to do so, the court dismissed the client‘s motion; but later granted the
father‘s pro se motion for immediate or emergency change of custody. Board found violations of
Prof.Cond.R. 1.3, 8.4(d), and 8.4(h). The court agreed. The court disagreed with the board‘s findings that
respondent violated Prof.Cond.R. 1.16(e) by failing to provide a refund as requested by the father
because that finding was not supported by sworn evidence and was thus dismissed by the court along
with Prof.Cond.R. 1.5(a). Counts Two and Three were withdrawn by relator because he was unable to
obtain affidavits from the grievants involved in those counts; however, respondent‘s failure to cooperate
with regard to those counts still remain as violations. In Count Four, a woman paid respondent $500
to obtain grandparent visitation rights. Respondent requested additional fees and received another
$650. Respondent never completed any work on her behalf. Whenever the client reached him by
telephone, he explained that he was busy with another client and would call her back, but never did.
Later, the client found that respondent‘s telephone number was disconnected. The board found
violations of Prof.Cond.R. 1.3 and 8.4(d). In Count Five, respondent was hired by a couple to prepare a
trust. Respondent quoted his fee as $1500, and the husband paid respondent $750 and signed some
papers. Respondent subsequently missed a meeting with the clients. Two days later the husband paid
respondent $778, the remainder of the attorney‘s fees and filing fees. Respondent subsequently arrived
two hours late to a meeting at the clients‘ home. Respondent said he was going home to change clothes
and that he would return, but he never did. The clients tried to call respondent, but his voicemail was
always full. They left messages four times when someone did answer the phone. Respondent never
returned their calls. The clients terminated respondent and requested by certified mail that he return of
their documents and money. Although he received the letter, he did not respond. The board found
violations of Prof.Cond.R. 1.3, 1.16(d), 1.16(e), 8.4(d) and 8.4(h), but not Prof.Cond.R. 1.5(a), as it
was not supported by clear and convincing evidence. The court agreed. In Count Six, a father paid
respondent $750 to represent him in a custody matter, and later paid an additional $150 to prepare a
motion for a protective order. Respondent filed a complaint to allocate parental rights and responsibilities
on the father‘s behalf in March 2009. At the conclusion of an August 31, 2009 pretrial, the court ordered
respondent to prepare a decision and submit it for the magistrate by September 18. Apparently this entry
was not completed, as mediation was set for October. The mediation was later rescheduled for
November, but respondent failed to notify the father. The father requested by certified mail a refund.
Respondent received the letter but no money was returned to the father. The board found violations of
Prof.Cond.R. 1.3 and 1.16(e). The court agreed. In Count Seven, a man paid respondent $2500 in
February 2007 to represent him against his former employer. In September 2009, the client attempted to
call respondent to discuss the case, but found that respondent‘s number had been disconnected. The client
cannot locate him. The client is unaware of any work done by respondent. The board found violations
of Prof.Cond.R. 1.3, 1.4(a)(3), 8.4(d), and 8.4(h). The court agreed. In Count Eight, an heir paid
respondent $200 to probate a will. Respondent filed the application to probate the will, and for authority
to administer the estate. He later filed inventory and appraisal, but then did little or nothing. Months