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

Case Summaries- 122
later, when the heir spoke with him he promised to complete the matter and he requested another $1500,
which was paid by cashier‘s check. The heir never heard from respondent again. When the heir called
the office he was never there and when he stopped at the office he was told respondent was out of the
office ―indefinitely.‖ The heir contacted another attorney who told the heir that the attorney should not
have been paid until the estate administration was completed. The Board found violations of
Prof.Cond.R. 1.3, 1.5(a), 8.4(d) and 8.4(h). The court agreed. In Count Nine, respondent was hired in
February 2009 to probate an estate. Respondent was paid $500 and given numerous documents, including
vehicle titles, property deeds, bank records, and the deceased‘s death certificate. After trying to reach
respondent for several weeks, the client met with respondent, who had not prepared any of the
documents. Respondent asked the woman to sign the blank documents. Respondent led the client on for
several months, all the while not completing the work. In mid September she was told he would not be in
the office that week. In December 2010, she went to respondent‘s office to retrieve the documents and
found that his office was no longer there. The board found violations of Prof.Cond.R. 1.3, 1.5(a),
1.16(d), 1.16(e), 8.4(d), and 8.4(h). Of the 11 letters of inquiry sent to respondent, respondent received
the first four and the rest were returned as undeliverable. In January 2010, respondent called relator to
say he was in a rehabilitation center and to send the grievances there. Respondent never responded to
any of the grievances, did not answer the complaint, and did not respond to the default motion. The
Board found violations of Prof.Cond.R. 8.1(b) and Gov.Bar R. V(4)(G) with respect to all the counts
except Counts Two and Three. The court agreed with the master commissioner that respondent violated
Prof.Cond.R. 8.1(b) and Gov.Bar R. V(4)(G) as to all the counts. In aggravation, there was a pattern of
misconduct involving multiple offenses, a failure to cooperate with the disciplinary process and failure
to acknowledge the wrongful nature of respondent‘s conduct, harm to vulnerable clients and a failure to
return unearned fees. BCGD Proc.Reg. 10(B)(1)(c), (d), (e), (g), (h), and (i). In mitigation, there was no
prior disciplinary record. BCGD Proc.Reg. 10(B)(2)(a). The respondent claimed to suffer from a
chemical dependency, but no mitigating effect was given because the requirements of 10(B)(2)(g) were
not met. The board recommended disbarment, which is the presumptive sanction for attorneys who
accept retainers and fail to perform legal services- tantamount to theft. See Moushey (2004), Weaver
(2004). The Court adopted the recommended sanction and ordered respondent be permanently disbarred.
Rules Violated: 1.3, 1.4(a)(3), 1.5(a), 1.16(d), 1.16(e), 8.1(b), 8.4(d), 8.4(h); Gov.Bar R. V(4)(G)
Aggravation: (c), (d), (e), (g), (h), (i)
Mitigation: (a)
Prior Discipline: NO Procedure/ Process Issues: YES Criminal Conduct: NO
Public Official: NO Sanction: Disbarment