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

Hildebrand, Cleveland Metro. Bar Assn. v.
127 Ohio St.3d 304, 2010-Ohio-5712. Decided 12/1/2010.
Case Summaries- 125
Respondent accepted fees from clients, failed to perform any work, failed to respond to clients‘ inquiries
and to deliver clients‘ files upon request, and made false statements to relator regarding intentions to
respond to grievances and failed to cooperate in the disciplinary investigation. A master commissioner
considered relator‘s motion for default and made findings, conclusions, and a recommended sanction, .
As to client one, in March 2007 respondent was retained by a woman to represent her son in a criminal
appeal and bond reduction. Respondent was paid $5000 as a retainer and another $900 as a deposit for
the trial transcript which the respondent failed forward to the court reporter. The day before the
transcript was due in the court of appeals, the client realized respondent had not filed it. The client‘s
fiancée borrowed $900 and paid the court reporter. Respondent said he would refund the money, but
never did. Respondent also ignored repeated requests from the mother for information about the status of
the appeal and claimed that she owed him for additional work. After the appellate court dismissed the
appeal, respondent was terminated. He failed to hand over the client file upon request to the new attorney.
Respondent ignored investigatory letters and telephone calls from relator, and failed to submit
subpoenaed documents after seeking an extension of time and promising to submit the materials. The
board found violations of Prof.Cond.R. 1.3, 1.4(a)(3), 1.4(a)(4), 1.5(a), 1.15, 8.1(b), and Gov.Bar R.
V(4)(G). As to Client Two, in March 2008 a man retained respondent in a replevin action. The man
provided a detailed list of the property sought and paid $625. Respondent never filed the action, failed
to communicate with the client, and did not refund the client‘s money. The man filed a grievance. He
promised relator he would send a written response to the grievance. He later claimed he had sent the
written response. Later, he faxed the response to relator. Respondent further failed to respond to a
subpoena duces tecum, even after promising to do so. The board found violations of Prof.Cond.R. 1.3,
1.4(a)(3) and (4), 1.5(a) and 8.1(b), and Gov.Bar R. V(4)(G). A third client sought respondent‘s help
with a domestic relations matter. Respondent quoted a $500 fee. He cashed a check from the client‘s
father for $200 and then failed to respond to the client‘s numerous phone calls. The client had to retain
different counsel just days before the hearing. Respondent did not refund any of the $200 even though the
client‘s father made numerous phone calls and sent a certified letter requesting the refund. Respondent
failed to respond to a letter from relator‘s investigator. The Board found violations of Prof.Cond.R. 1.3,
1.4(a)(3) and (4), 1.5(a) and 8.1(b), and Gov.Bar R. V(4)(G). Relator sent respondent a notice of intent to
file a complaint via regular and certified mail. Respondent responded to relator, saying he had been in a
car accident. Relator advised him that he should send his written response to by boar if he wished it to
be considered by the probable cause panel. He sent it to relator, but failed to submit anything to the
probable cause panel of the board. Relator sent him by certified mail a notice of intent to file a
motion for default which was delivered and a letter sent by regular mail was not returned as
undeliverable. The board recommended a permanent disbarment. No mitigating factors were present. In
aggravation, respondent currently is under attorney registration suspension and had a former registration
suspension, committed multiple ethics violations, caused economic harm to vulnerable clients and
jeopardized appeal rights of one, and failed to cooperate in the disciplinary process and made false
statements of his intentions to respond to grievances. BCGD Proc.Reg. 10(B)(1)(a), (d), (h), (e) and (f).
The Court provided respondent an opportunity to make objections to the report, but none were filed. The
court noted that taking retainers and failing to carry out employment is tantamount to theft and that
permanent disbarment is the presumptive sanction. Citations to Weaver (2004), Horan (2009), Marshall
(2009), Helfgott (2006), and Moushey (2004). The court so ordered a permanent disbarment. One justice
in dissent would have imposed an indefinite suspension.
Rules Violated: Prof.Cond.R. 1.3, 1.4(a)(3), 1.4(a)(4), 1.5(a), 1.15, 8.1(b); Gov.Bar R. V(4)(G)
Aggravation: (a), (d), (h), (e), (f)
Mitigation: NONE
Prior Discipline: YES (x2) Procedure/ Process Issues: YES Criminal Conduct: NO
Public Official: NO Sanction: Disbarment