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

Hildebrand, Cleveland Metro. Bar Assn. v.127 Ohio St.3d 304, 2010-Ohio-5712. Decided 12/1/2010.Case Summaries- 125Respondent accepted fees from clients, failed to perform any work, failed to respond to clients‘ inquiriesand to deliver clients‘ files upon request, and made false statements to relator regarding intentions torespond to grievances and failed to cooperate in the disciplinary investigation. A master commissionerconsidered relator‘s motion for default and made findings, conclusions, and a recommended sanction, .As to client one, in March 2007 respondent was retained by a woman to represent her son in a criminalappeal and bond reduction. Respondent was paid $5000 as a retainer and another $900 as a deposit forthe trial transcript which the respondent failed forward to the court reporter. The day before thetranscript was due in the court of appeals, the client realized respondent had not filed it. The client‘sfiancée borrowed $900 and paid the court reporter. Respondent said he would refund the money, butnever did. Respondent also ignored repeated requests from the mother for information about the status ofthe appeal and claimed that she owed him for additional work. After the appellate court dismissed theappeal, respondent was terminated. He failed to hand over the client file upon request to the new attorney.Respondent ignored investigatory letters and telephone calls from relator, and failed to submitsubpoenaed documents after seeking an extension of time and promising to submit the materials. Theboard found violations of Prof.Cond.R. 1.3, 1.4(a)(3), 1.4(a)(4), 1.5(a), 1.15, 8.1(b), and Gov.Bar R.V(4)(G). As to Client Two, in March 2008 a man retained respondent in a replevin action. The manprovided a detailed list of the property sought and paid $625. Respondent never filed the action, failedto communicate with the client, and did not refund the client‘s money. The man filed a grievance. Hepromised relator he would send a written response to the grievance. He later claimed he had sent thewritten response. Later, he faxed the response to relator. Respondent further failed to respond to asubpoena duces tecum, even after promising to do so. The board found violations of Prof.Cond.R. 1.3,1.4(a)(3) and (4), 1.5(a) and 8.1(b), and Gov.Bar R. V(4)(G). A third client sought respondent‘s helpwith a domestic relations matter. Respondent quoted a $500 fee. He cashed a check from the client‘sfather for $200 and then failed to respond to the client‘s numerous phone calls. The client had to retaindifferent counsel just days before the hearing. Respondent did not refund any of the $200 even though theclient‘s father made numerous phone calls and sent a certified letter requesting the refund. Respondentfailed to respond to a letter from relator‘s investigator. The Board found violations of Prof.Cond.R. 1.3,1.4(a)(3) and (4), 1.5(a) and 8.1(b), and Gov.Bar R. V(4)(G). Relator sent respondent a notice of intent tofile a complaint via regular and certified mail. Respondent responded to relator, saying he had been in acar accident. Relator advised him that he should send his written response to by boar if he wished it tobe considered by the probable cause panel. He sent it to relator, but failed to submit anything to theprobable cause panel of the board. Relator sent him by certified mail a notice of intent to file amotion for default which was delivered and a letter sent by regular mail was not returned asundeliverable. The board recommended a permanent disbarment. No mitigating factors were present. Inaggravation, respondent currently is under attorney registration suspension and had a former registrationsuspension, committed multiple ethics violations, caused economic harm to vulnerable clients andjeopardized appeal rights of one, and failed to cooperate in the disciplinary process and made falsestatements of his intentions to respond to grievances. BCGD Proc.Reg. 10(B)(1)(a), (d), (h), (e) and (f).The Court provided respondent an opportunity to make objections to the report, but none were filed. Thecourt noted that taking retainers and failing to carry out employment is tantamount to theft and thatpermanent disbarment is the presumptive sanction. Citations to Weaver (2004), Horan (2009), Marshall(2009), Helfgott (2006), and Moushey (2004). The court so ordered a permanent disbarment. One justicein dissent would have imposed an indefinite suspension.Rules Violated: Prof.Cond.R. 1.3, 1.4(a)(3), 1.4(a)(4), 1.5(a), 1.15, 8.1(b); Gov.Bar R. V(4)(G)Aggravation: (a), (d), (h), (e), (f)Mitigation: NONEPrior Discipline: YES (x2) Procedure/ Process Issues: YES Criminal Conduct: NOPublic Official: NO Sanction: Disbarment