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

Mason, Toledo Bar Assn. v.
118 Ohio St.3d 412, 2008-Ohio-2704. Decided 6/12/2008.
Case Summaries- 199
Upon relator‘s motion for default, the matter was referred to a master commissioner. As to the Mitchell
grievance, respondent represented Mitchell in a personal injury claim. The client agreed to a one-third
contingent fee on any settlement or verdict. Respondent agreed to protect the prior attorney‘s interest in attorney
fees and expenses and to pay the client‘s outstanding medical bills with settlement proceeds. In April 2005,
respondent notified the client of a settlement of $13,750. The client signed the settlement check, but did not
receive a check or accounting until December 2005, when she received a check for $4,091.67. She deposited
the check but it was returned because it was written against a bank account that did not exist. Respondent has never
paid her any proceeds and did not pay her unpaid medical bills. She told him when she signed the settlement
check that she was being sued for unpaid medical bills. He assured her he would pay the bills and he sent her a
settlement statement showing a deduction of $2,800 to pay the medical bills. Her wages were garnished. Further,
he deducted the prior attorney‘s fees from the client‘s settlement, instead of deducting from his own contingent fee.
As a result the fees to respondent and the successor attorney were almost 50% ($6,608.33) of the total settlement.
Board adopted the master commissioner‘s findings of violations of DR 1-102(A)(3), 1-102(A)(4), 1-102(A)(6),
2-107(A)(1), 2-107(A)(2), 2-107(A)(3) 6-101(A)(3), 7-101(A)(2), 7-101(A)(3), 9-102(B)(3), 9-102(B)(4). As to
the Young grievance, respondent accepted a one-third contingent fee to represent Young in a civil-rights action
against her employer. At a mediation conference in February 2006, the client agreed to a $6,000 settlement.
Respondent met with the client to sign the settlement and said he would overnight the agreement to expedite
receipt of the proceeds. He informed the client she could revoke the settlement within 20 days. After a delay in
receiving the money, the client told respondent to revoke the settlement. He failed to revoke the settlement within
the 20 days. Respondent did not respond to the client‘s attempts to contact him. The client learned respondent did
not send the settlement papers to opposing counsel. She fired respondent. Respondent did not refund a $175 fee
she paid him to meet with her employer. Board adopted the master commissioner‘s findings of violations of DR 6-
101(A)(3), 7-101(A)(2) and 7-101(A)(3). As to the Graves grievance, Graves paid respondent $900 to defend
him against two felony charges and a misdemeanor. Respondent made some court appearance but failed to appear
for a scheduled court date in common pleas court on 7/13/2006 and at a pretrial in municipal court on 8/2/2006,
resulting in the municipal court issuing a bench warrant for Graves. Respondent did not return class and was
not available at the office, Respondent did not return documents related to the felony charges that Graves believes
are exculpatory. Board adopted master commissioner‘s finding of violations of DR 6-101(A)(3), 7-101(A)(2), and
7-101(A)(3). As to the Gardner grievance, Gardner paid respondent a retainer of $800 to represent him on criminal
domestic-violence charge. Respondent spoke to Gardner twice by phone, met once in his office, and appeared for
a pretrial, but thereafter Garner was unable to contact him. He did not return phone calls. When Garner went to his
office, it had been vacated. Board adopted master commissioner‘s findings of violations of DR 1-102(A)(6), 6-
101(A)(3), and 7-101(A)(2). Respondent contacted relator once by phone and acknowledged receipt of the
grievances and promised to respond. Relator‘s attempts to contact respondent were futile. Board adopted master
commissioner‘s findings of a violation of Gov.Bar R. V(4)(g) by ignoring investigative inquiries and failing to
answer the complaints. In aggravation, he acted with dishonest or selfish motive, engaged in a pattern of
misconduct, multiple offenses, did not cooperate, harmed vulnerable victims, and failed to make restitution.
BCGD Proc.Reg. 10(B)(1)(b), (c), (d), (e), (h), and (i). In mitigation, he had no prior discipline, but was briefly
suspended in 2007 for failure to comply with registration requirements. Board adopted master commissioner‘s
recommendation of an indefinite suspension. Supreme court agreed with the findings but not the sanction. The
court ordered a permanent disbarment. ―Disbarment is generally the sanction when a lawyer‘s neglect of a client‘s
case is coupled with misappropriation of the client‘s money and other professional misconduct. Citation to Glatki
(2000), Lord (2007), and Ross (2005). One justice dissented and would have ordered indefinite suspension.
Rules Violated: DR 1-102(A)(3), 1-102(A)(4), 1-102(A)(6), 2-107(A)(1), 2-107(A)(2), 2-107(A)(3) 6-
101(A)(3), 7-101(A)(2), 7-101(A)(3), 9-102(B)(3), 9-102(B)(4); Gov.Bar R. V(4)(G)
Aggravation: (b), (c), (d), (e), (h), (i)
Mitigation: NONE
Prior Discipline: YES Procedure/ Process Issues: NO Criminal Conduct: NO
Public Official: NO Sanction: Disbarment