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

Church, Cuyahoga Cty. Bar Assn. v.
116 Ohio St.3d 563, 2008-Ohio-81. Decided 1/17/2008.
Case Summaries- 52
Upon granting relator‘s motion for default, a master commissioner made findings, conclusions, and a
recommendation which the board adopted. As to Count I, in June 2005, respondent was hired to
represent two individuals (the Copens) who had been sued by a company in common pleas court.
Respondent filed an answer and a counter claim but eventually stopped communicating, failing to inform
them of court dates and to return phone calls, resulting in the clients‘ failing to appear for a pretrial.
Respondent did not respond when the company‘s filed a motion for and obtained summary judgment
against the Copens in the amount of $19,079.31 plus interest and court costs. Respondent did not respond
to the client‘s request that he return the file. Board found violations of DR 6- 101(A)(3), 7-101(A)(1),
7-101(A)(2), 7-101(A)(3), and 9-102(B)(4). As to Count II, relator sent two letters (one by certified
mail and one by regular mail) to notify him of and seek response to the grievance. The certified letter
was returned unclaimed and the regular mail letter was not returned as undeliverable. Relator‘s
investigator sent three letters requesting participation and cooperation in the investigation, but
respondent did not reply. The investigator spoke with respondent who promised to cooperate and send
his file to the investigator, but he did not send the file and did not appear for an interview. Respondent
was served with a copy of the formal complaint, but did not answer. Board found a violation of Gov.Bar
R. V(4)(G). In aggravation, there was a pattern of misconduct involving multiple offenses, a lack of
cooperation, refusal to acknowledge wrongful nature of his conduct, and there was vulnerability of and
resulting harm to clients. BCGD Proc.Reg. 10(B)(1)(c), (d), (e), (g), (h). There were no mitigating
factors found. BCGD Proc.Reg. 10(B)(2). Board recommended an indefinite suspension. Supreme
Court of Ohio agreed with the findings and the recommended sanction and so ordered an indefinite
suspension. The court noted that an indefinite suspension had already been imposed for virtually identical
misconduct in Cleveland Bar Assn. v. Church, 114 Ohio St.3d 41, 2007-Ohio-2744.
Rules Violated: DR 6- 101(A)(3), 7-101(A)(1), 7-101(A)(2), 7-101(A)(3), 9-102(B)(4); Gov.Bar R.
V(4)(G)
Aggravation: (c), (d), (e), (g), (h)
Mitigation: NONE
Prior Discipline: YES Procedure/ Process Issues: NO Criminal Conduct: NO
Public Official: NO Sanction: Indefinite Suspension