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

Hickman, Toledo Bar Assn. v.119 Ohio St.3d 102, 2008-Ohio-3837. Decided 8/6/2008.Case Summaries- 123Respondent was suspended for six months stayed for neglecting two personal injury matters and lying tohis clients about the neglect in Toledo Bar Assn. v. Hickman, 107 Ohio St.3d 296, 2005-Ohio-6513.During that suspension, relator found other misconduct and charged respondent with additional violationswhich resulted in a suspension for one year to be served consecutively to his first suspension fortaking a retainer when there was no legally viable claim and for neglecting the criminal defense of aclient in Toledo Bar Assn. v. Hickman, 113 Ohio St.3d 164, 2007-Ohio-1256. Relator filed this thirdcomplaint. In 2003, respondent received a retainer to investigate a possible forged will of which theclient would have been a beneficiary. Respondent made misrepresentations to the client about thework he was performing. He falsely told the client a pretrial hearing and a trial date had been scheduledand that he had filed for discovery. Panel and board found violations of DR 1-102(A)(4) and 6-101(A)(3). On May 10, 2006, a client paid respondent a $1,500 retainer for representation in a domesticrelations matter. Respondent told the client he was suspended, but that his suspension was about toterminate and he would be reinstated in June or July 2006. This was not true because he was aware ofadditional grievances pending against him that would likely prevent his reinstatement. Two days afterhe received the client‘s check, he attended a disciplinary hearing on those grievances and stipulated tothe charged misconduct and was informed that the hearing panel would recommend a one-yearsuspension in addition to the six months he was already serving. He did not inform the client he wouldnot be reinstated and he did not refund the retainer. He deposited the retainer into his client trust accountand agreed to transfer it to another attorney he occasionally worked with once the attorney started torepresent the client. He did not pay the attorney any money and he avoided the client‘s calls. Inresponse to the grievance, he stated the retainer was still in the trust account. However, the trust accounthad already dropped below the retainer amount. Panel and board found violations of DR 6-101(A)(3),3-101(B), 9-102(A), 1-102(A)(4). As to another client, in August 2005, he accepted a $12,500retainer and placed it in his trust account. He made numerous withdrawals even though he had notearned the money. When it was gone, he asked for and received another $5,000. A month latter, heasked for and received another $5,000. Panel and board found violations of DR 2-106(A) and 9-102(B)(4). In aggravation, he committed the same type of misconduct-client neglect, improper retentionof client funds, and lying to clients-in the two prior disciplinary cases; he acted with dishonest orselfish motive; engaged in a pattern of misconduct; failed to acknowledge the wrongful nature of themisconduct; and failed to make restitution to clients, many of whom were vulnerable. BCGDProc.Reg. 10(B)(1)(b), (c), (g), (h), and (i). In mitigation, he cooperated. BCGD Proc.Reg. 10(B)(2)(d).Board adopted panel‘s recommended sanction of a permanent disbarment. Supreme Court of Ohioagreed and so ordered.Rules Violated: DR 1-102(A)(4), 2-106(A), 3-101(B), 6-101(A)(3), 9-102(A), 9-102(B)(4)Aggravation: (b), (c), (g), (h), (i)Mitigation: (d)Prior Discipline: YES Procedure/ Process Issues: NO Criminal Conduct: NOPublic Official: NO Sanction: Disbarment