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

Freeman, Cleveland Metro. Bar Assn. v.
128 Ohio St.3d 421, 2011-Ohio-1483. Decided 4/5/2011.
Case Summaries- 92
Respondent misappropriated client funds, neglected cases, failed to communicate with clients,
lied to clients and relator, and failed to cooperate with the disciplinary investigation. Respondent
failed to file an answer, so a master commissioner was appointed; the master commissioner made
findings of fact, conclusions of law, and recommended an indefinite suspension. As to four
grievants, respondent settle cases for them, but failed to distribute settlement proceeds, or failed
to do so in a timely manner. He failed to submit medical bills for payment and failed to return
clients‘ phone calls. He also lied to relator during the investigation. This conduct violated DR
6-101(A)(3) (neglect of a legal matter), 3 counts of Prof.Cond.R. 1.3 (reasonable diligence), 2
counts of 1.4(a)(2) (reasonably consult with client), 4 counts of 1.4(a)(3) (keep client reasonably
informed), 1.15(d) (full accounting of funds), and 8.4(c) (dishonesty, fraud, deceit, or
misrepresentation). Respondent dismissed a case without the client‘s permission, failed to return
telephone calls, and failed to provide the client‘s file upon request. This conduct violated DR 6-
101(A)(3), 2 counts of Prof.Cond.R. 1.3, 1.4(a)(1) (failure to inform a client of a decision), 2
counts of 1.4(a)(2)- 1.4(a)(4), and 1.15(d). Respondent told another client that he attended a
pretrial and participated in discovery for a case, when in fact he had not. In another case,
respondent asked for several continuances but did not file the motion he promised he would,
failed to appear for court, and failed to inform his client of the court dates, causing the client to
have a warrant sworn out for her arrest. This conduct violated 2 counts of Prof.Cond.R. 1.3, 2
counts of 1.4(a)(2)- 1.4(a)(4), 2 counts of 8.4(c), and 2 counts of 8.4(d). Finally, respondent
failed to cooperate in the disciplinary investigation and did not respond to inquiries from relator.
This conduct violated Prof.Cond.R. 8.1 (failing to respond to investigation) and Gov.Bar R.
V(4)(G) (requiring cooperation in a disciplinary investigation). The Board did not find the
following charged counts by clear and convincing evidence, and thus dismissed them: 7 counts
of Prof.Cond.R. 1.4(a)(1), 2 counts of 1.4(a)(2), 1.16(d), and 1.3. The Court agreed with the
above findings. In aggravation, respondent acted with dishonest or selfish motive, engaged in a
pattern of misconduct involving multiple offenses, failed to cooperate during the disciplinary
proceeding, failed to acknowledge the wrongful nature of his conduct or make restitution, and
harmed vulnerable clients. BCGD Proc.Reg. 10(B)(1)(b), (c), (d), (e), (g), (h), (i). In mitigation,
respondent lacked a prior disciplinary record. BCGD Proc.Reg. 10(B)(2)(a). The board
recommended an indefinite suspension. Relator objected and requested permanent disbarment.
The Court noted that the presumptive sanction for misappropriation is disbarment. Citing Jones
(2006), Fernandez (2003), Smith (2003), Weaver (2004), and respondent‘s over 50 ethical
violations, the Court sustained relator‘s objection and ordered respondent be permanently
disbarred.
Rules Violated: Prof.Cond.R. 1.3, 1.4(a)(1), 1.4(a)(2), 1.4(a)(3), 1.4(a)(4), 1.15(d), 8.1(b), 8.4(c),
8.4(d); DR 6-101(A)(3); Gov.Bar R. V(4)(G)
Aggravation: (b), (c), (d), (e), (g), (h), (i) Mitigation: (a)
Prior Discipline: NO Procedure/ Process Issues: NO Criminal Conduct: NO
Public Official: NO Sanction: Disbarment