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

Saunders, Greene Cty. Bar Assn. v.
127 Ohio St.3d 241, 2010-Ohio-5708. Decided 11/30/2010.
Case Summaries- 293
Respondent failed to act with diligence, failed to keep his clients reasonably informed about their
legal matters and did not cooperate in the disciplinary process. In November 2009, respondent was
suspended from the practice of law for failure to register and pay the registration fees. In January 2010,
he received an interim-felony suspension in In re Saunders, 124 Ohio St.3d 1435, 2010-Ohio-187.
Relator charged respondent in a four- count complaint, which went unanswered. A master commissioner
granted relator‘s motion for default and made findings, conclusions, and a recommendation which the
Board adopted. In Count One, respondent was hired by a husband and wife to assist with estate-planning
matters. He prepared the necessary documents, but kept them in his possession, even after the couple
and later the couple‘s son requested in 2008 that the documents be forwarded to another attorney.
Because the documents were never provided, the clients had to have new documents prepared. The board
found violations of Prof.Cond.R. 1.4(a)(3), 1.4(a)(4), and 8.1(b). In Count Two, in 2009 a client retained
respondent and paid $1,500 for representation in a divorce. The client tried to contact respondent over
50 times, but respondent never responded, did not provide copies of any documents filed, and failed to
attend court proceedings, including the final divorce hearing. The client‘s lacked funds to hire another
attorney and had to represent himself. The board found violations of Prof.Cond.R. 1.3, 1.4(a)(3), and
8.1(b). In Count Three, in 2007, a woman who was attorney for her deceased father‘s estate hired
respondent to prepare the 2006 income tax returns for the estate. Respondent did not return the
woman‘s calls, even when she tried to contact him at the municipal court where he worked as an
assistant prosecuting attorney. When she finally did get in touch with him, he said that he had requested
an extension of time to file and that she would not have to pay any late fees; but the client avers these
facts are untrue. The client retained an accountant to prepare the tax returns and another attorney to
finalize the estate. The board found violations of Prof.Cond.R. 1.4(a)(2), 1.4(a)(3), 1.4(a)(4), and
8.1(b). As to Count IV, the board dismissed all but one charge because the relator submitted an
affidavit from the grievant‘s attorney, who did not have personal knowledge of the facts, rather than from
the grievant. The board found respondent violated Prof.Cond.R. 8.1(b) by failing to respond to the
investigation of the grievance. In aggravation, there were prior disciplinary offenses, dishonest or
selfish motive, a pattern of misconduct involving multiple offenses, harm to vulnerable clients, and failure
to cooperate in the disciplinary process. BCGD Proc.Reg. 10(B)(1)(a), (b), (c), (d), (e), and (h). There
were no mitigating factors. The court, citing Hoff (2010) and Mathewson (2007), noted that neglect and
failure to cooperate generally warrant an indefinite suspension. The court adopted the findings of fact,
conclusions of law and recommended sanction and so ordered an indefinite suspension.
Rules Violated: Prof.Cond.R. 1.3, 1.4(a)(2), 1.4(a)(3), 1.4(a)(4), 8.1(b)
Aggravation: (a), (b), (c), (d), (e), (h)
Mitigation: NONE
Prior Discipline: YES Procedure/ Process Issues: YES Criminal Conduct: YES
Public Official: YES Sanction: Indefinite Suspension