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

Robinson, Lorain Cty. Bar Assn. v.
121 Ohio St.3d 24, 2009-Ohio-262. Decided 1/29/2009.
Case Summaries- 278
Respondent abandoned four bankruptcy clients, falsely reassured clients, and failed to follow court orders to
correct deficiencies when he finally did file the petitions. Respondent received notice of the complaint, but did not
answer. Relator moved for default pursuant to Gov.Bar R. V(6)(F). A master commissioner granted the motion,
made findings and recommended an indefinite suspension which the board adopted. The board found violations of
Gov.Bar R. V(4)(G) and Prof.Cond.R. 8.1, but the Supreme Court disagreed, noting the investigator‘s affidavit was
not included and finding that relator failed to provide sworn or certified prima facia evidence to show that
respondent (1) failed to cooperate in the disciplinary investigation of the underlying grievances or (2) in response to
a demand for information from a disciplinary authority, failed to disclose a material fact or knowingly failed to
respond. However, the Court found the other violations warranted the recommended sanction. In Count I, Jerry
T. Williams, Sr. paid respondent $1,200 in April 2006 to file his bankruptcy petition. Williams frequently called
with concerns and respondent reassured him ―everything was all right‖ and that no notice of sheriff‘s sale would be
published. Respondent did not file the petition until September 2006. In the meantime, there was public notice of a
sheriff‘s sale of his home. He did not appear at a creditor‘s meeting. He apparently resigned form his law firm
and another attorney unknown to the client appeared on the client‘s behalf. The attorney, whom Williams did not
know or retain, saw the bankruptcy through to discharge. The board found violations of DR 6-101(A)(3) and 7-
101(A)(3) for waiting over five months to file the bankruptcy, until after the notice of the sheriff‘s sale had been
published, and then quitting the case without notice. In Count II, Brian Jones paid respondent $1,600 in June 2006
to handle his bankruptcy. Respondent waited three months after being retained and one month after being paid in
full to file the petition, failed to keep three appointments with his client, failed to appear at the October 2006
bankruptcy hearing where he sent an associate whom Jones did not know and thought was inexperienced. He was
notified by the court of its plan to dismiss the case for irregularities in court filings, told the client he would handle
it, but he did not correct the deficiencies. The case was dismissed in December 2006 for irregularities in the
filing. Creditors took collection measures against Jones. Respondent falsely told the client that he had refiled the
case. Another attorney took over the case and obtained a discharge in bankruptcy. The board found violations of
DR 1-102(A)(4) and 7-102(A)(5) by misrepresenting the status of the case and 6-101(A)(3) and 7-101(A)(3) by
allowing the case to languish after the court‘s warnings of filing deficiencies and possible dismissal. In Count III,
respondent abandoned Herbert Gillespie Jr. after being paid $1,850 in February 2006. When the client called,
respondent reassured him repeatedly that the petition had been filed, but it was not filed until 11 months after
he was retained. Gillespie suffered $1,000 in garnishments. The client‘s case was dismissed for failure to show
cause why respondent had not paid the filing fees or filed all necessary papers. Respondent returned Gillespie‘s
fees, but failed to return his papers. Gillespie hired another lawyer to complete his bankruptcy. The board found
violations of DR 1-102(A)(4) and 7-102(A)(5) by misrepresenting the status of the bankruptcy case, 6-101(A)(3) by
neglecting the case, 7-101(A)(3) by allowing creditor garnishments, and 1-102(A)(5). In Count IV, Michael
Lennerth retained respondent in May 2006 to file a bankruptcy petition. He reassured the client it had been filed, but
did not file the petition until November 2006. In mid-December 2006, respondent failed to appear at a court ordered
appearance to show cause for why he failed to correct deficiencies in the petition. As a result, the court dismissed
the case. Respondent failed to oppose a mortgage company‘s petition for relief from the automatic stay, which
led to the foreclosure of Lennerth‘s home. Respondent remitted his fee, but caused the client to obtain another
attorney and incur $1,598 in fees. The board found violations of DR 1-102(A)(4) and 7-102(A)(5) by
misrepresenting the status of the case, 6-101(A)(3) by neglecting the case, and 7-101(A)(3) by filing to prevent
foreclosure of the client‘s home, and DR-102(A)(5). The Supreme Court agreed. During the disciplinary
investigation, respondent communicated his desire ―to resolve all cases and complaints and close [his] bankruptcy
practice‖ for other employment. Respondent‘s license has been listed inactive since November 30, 2007. The board
recommended an indefinite suspension. The Supreme Court agreed and so ordered.
Rules Violated: DR 1-102(A)(4), 1-102(A)(5), 6-101(A)(3), 7-101(A)(3), 7-102(A)(5)
Aggravation: NONE
Mitigation: NONE
Prior Discipline: NO Procedure/ Process Issues: YES Criminal Conduct: NO
Public Official: NO Sanction: Indefinite Suspension