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

Dawson, Cleveland Metropolitan Bar Assn. v.
124 Ohio St.3d 22, 2009-Ohio-5959. Decided 11/19/2009.
Case Summaries- 61
Respondent failed to comply with discovery requests, to oppose a motion for summary judgment, to
respond to a motion to deem admitted the statements propounded in requests for admission, and to
timely file a notice of appeal. Board adopted the panel‘s findings and recommended sanction. As to
Count I, respondent graduated from law school in 2000 and accepted employment with a large law firm
in its litigation department. He entered solo practice in 2002 and agreed to take over a number of cases
from an attorney facing disciplinary proceedings. In one case, he agreed to defend two clients in a
pending age-discrimination law suit, but did not provide the required notice that he lacked insurance.
He entered an appearance as defense counsel in August 2002. The next month, at a final pretrial
conference, he requested a continuance of the trial date and an extension of time to complete discovery
and the court continued the trial date until January 2003. He then neglected the case. He failed to
respond to plaintiff‘s November 2002 motion for partial summary judgment, which unopposed motion the
court granted. He failed to reply to the plaintiff‘s motion to deem as admitted the statements in
plaintiff‘s requests for admission, which unopposed motion the court granted. The court overruled
respondent‘s motion to reconsider the order granting partial summary judgment, noting respondent‘s
failure to timely respond to the requests for admission and to the motion to deem as admitted the
statement in the requests for admission. The court cancelled the scheduled trial date because respondent
failed to respond to the plaintiff‘s discovery requests. The court held a hearing on a pending motion
for default which motion the court granted in March 2003 and awarded the plaintiff‘s $184, 675
($130,900 in compensatory damages, $50,000 in punitive damages, and $3,775 in attorney fees).
Respondent failed to timely appeal that default judgment, but the parties later settled for $27,000. Board
found violations of DR 1-104(A) and 6-101(A)(3). As to Count II, in January 2004, respondent was sued
for malpractice by the Count I couple. In early November 2004, they agree to a settlement which was
reduced to judgment, requiring respondent to pay the former clients $17,000 if he paid on time or
$22,000 if he defaulted. He agreed to pay in installments, but he defaulted after paying only one
installment. He then agreed to make month payments, but made only one payment under that
agreement. The total of the payments he made before defaulting on his agreements was $5,500.
Respondent‘s financial situation worsened by mid-September 2005 and he was facing foreclosure on three
rental properties and had a reduced income due to a decrease in public defender appointments. He filed
for Chapter 7 voluntary bankruptcy and discharged his former clients‘ judgment. Board found that he
entered the settlement agreements with good faith and without intent to avoid the obligation through
bankruptcy, but that respondent‘s failure to satisfy the judgment violated DR 1-102(A)(6). As an
aggravating factor, the board noted respondent‘s suspension in December 2005 for failure to comply
with attorney-registration requirements. In a footnote, the court stated that the Board had noted
respondent‘s monetary sanctions for failing to comply with CLE requirements, but that Gov.Bar R.
X(5)(C) prohibits consideration of CLE sanctions in disciplinary proceedings. In mitigation, there was no
prior discipline, no selfish or dishonest motive, free and full disclosure to relator, and cooperation.
BCGD Proc.Reg. 10(B)(2)(a), (b), and (d). Board recommended a six-month suspension, all stayed on
conditions of no further violations, completion of six hours of CLE in time management or law office
management approved by relator, and completion of a one-year monitored probation under a monitor
appointed by relator. The court agreed with the board‘s findings and conclusion, but not the
recommended sanction. The court ordered a six-month suspension. Citations to Hales (2008) and
Schoonover (2005).
Rules Violated: DR 1-102(A)(6), 1-104(A), 6-101(A)(3)
Aggravation: NONE
Mitigation: (a), (b), (d)
Prior Discipline: NO Procedure/ Process Issues: YES Criminal Conduct: NO
Public Official: NO Sanction: Six-month suspension