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

Hoff, Disciplinary Counsel v.124 Ohio St.3d 269, 2010-Ohio-136. Decided 1/26/2010.Case Summaries- 126Respondent accepted money to provide his services in a tax matter, but performed no work andfailed to refund the money. Client hired respondent in May 2006 to help resolve some tax issueswith the IRS. Respondent collected a $5000 advance from the client, without explaining his hourlyrate. In June 2006, client provided respondent with copies of her financial records and executed a powerof attorney. Respondent said he would forward the power of attorney to the IRS and try to negotiate acompromise. In the following months, however, client continued to receive tax delinquency notices fromthe IRS. In the fall of 2006, client learned that the IRS had no record of respondent‘s power of attorney.The client and her husband attempted to contact and search for the respondent, but were unsuccessful andgave up in early 2007. Respondent later gave client‘s case file to relator during the investigation, butnever refunded any of the $5000. During the investigation, the respondent moved and failed to provide anew address to relator as promised. He did not answer the complaint. A master commissioner grantedrelator‘s motion for default judgment and made findings, conclusions, and a recommended sanctionwhich the board adopted. The board found that respondent violated DR 1-102(A)(4) and Prof.Cond.R.8.4(c); DR 1-102(A)(6) and Prof.Cond.R. 8.4(h); DR 6-101(A)(3) and Prof.Cond.R. 1.3; DR 7-101(A)(1) and Prof.Cond.R. 1.2(a); DR 7-101(A)(2); and Gov.Bar R. V(4)(G). In footnote 3, the courtnoted that the master commissioner and the board also found a violation of Prof.Cond.R. 1.4(A)(3), butthe court did not accept the finding because it was not charged in the complaint. The board found theonly mitigating factor to be respondent‘s lack of prior discipline. BCGD Proc.Reg. 10(B)(2)(a).Alternatively, the board found numerous aggravating factors, including: failure to cooperate in thedisciplinary process, refusal to acknowledge the wrongfulness of his conduct and the serious harm hecaused his vulnerable victim, and failure to make restitution. BCGD Proc.Reg. 10(B)(1)(e), (g), (h),and (i). Citing Mathewson (2007) for the general rule that neglect and failure to cooperate in thedisciplinary investigation generally warrant an indefinite suspension, the board recommended anindefinite suspension. The Supreme Court of Ohio agreed with the board‘s findings and recommendedsanction, and so ordered.Rules Violated: Prof.Cond.R. 1.2(a), 1.3, 8.4(c), 8.4(h); DR 1-102(A)(4), 1-102(A)(6), 6-101(A)(3),7-101(A)(1), 7-101(A)(2); Gov.Bar R. V(4)(G)Aggravation: (e), (g), (h), (i)Mitigation: (a)Prior Discipline: NO Procedure/ Process Issues: YES Criminal Conduct: NOPublic Official: NO Sanction: Indefinite Suspension