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

Marshall, Warren Cty. Bar Assn. v.121 Ohio St.3d 197, 2009-Ohio-501. Decided 2/12/09.Case Summaries- 196Respondent neglected legal matters entrusted to him, intentionally failed to carry out a contract ofemployment, and knowingly failed to respond to a demand for information from a disciplinary authority.In the Smith Grievance, Jeremy and Janelle Smith hired respondent concerning their filing bankruptcy.They paid respondent a $750 retainer and $300 filing fees. Although the Smiths provided respondentwith all necessary paperwork, respondent did not promptly file their petition. When filed, it failed toconform to the filing requirements. He failed to respond to the bankruptcy court‘s order and noticeregarding the deficient filing. The bankruptcy court dismissed the petition. Respondent failed to informhis clients of the dismissal, failed to return his clients‘ repeated phone calls, and failed to return anyof the retainer. He never responded to relator‘s two letters of inquiry. In the Binkley Grievance,respondent first represented Shaunda Neal through the Legal Aid Society in a child-custody dispute. J.Robert Binkley, Neal‘s fiancé, also retained respondent to represent Neal in some criminal matters, payingtwo retainers, one for $500 and one for $300., Respondent agreed to represent Neal in a renewed childcustodydispute and in possible civil and criminal actions regarding bad checks Neal had written. Binkleypaid respondent $3,000. Neal filed for bankruptcy protection and her bankruptcy lawyer discovered thatrespondent had done nothing to settle with the creditors to whom Neal had passed the bad checks.Binkley and to no avail, Neal repeatedly attempted to contact respondent. Neal died while therenewed child-custody dispute was pending. After her death, Binkley retained attorney Ted Gudorf toobtain an accounting from respondent of the fees paid for legal work undertaken but not performed.Respondent failed to respond until Gudorf called another attorney in respondent‘s office, and even then hedid not provide an accounting. Further, respondent did not respond to the grievance committee. At aprehearing telephone conference with the hearing panel chair, the parties agreed to the time and place ofthe evidentiary hearing. The panel chair also ordered a set schedule for discovery and service of requestsfor admissions. Respondent failed to respond to relator‘s requests for admissions; so they were alldeemed admitted. Despite the panel chair‘s order and notice of a second prehearing telephoneconference, respondent failed to appear. Finally, respondent failed to appear at the evidentiary hearing.After recessing in order to wait for respondent, the panel conducted the evidentiary hearing in hisabsence. As to both grievances, the board found violations of DR 6-101(A)(3), DR 7-101(A)(2), andProf.Cond.R. 8.1(b). The board found no mitigating factors. In aggravation, the board found thatrespondent had two prior disciplinary violations resulting in separate two-year suspensions from thepractice of law. See Warren Cty. Bar Assn. v. Marshall, 105 Ohio St.3d, 2004-Ohio-7011 and WarrenCty. Bar Assn. v. Marshall, 113 Ohio St.3d 54, 2007-Ohio-980. Further, the board found respondentengaged in a pattern of misconduct, engaged in dishonest conduct, and failed to cooperate. The boardrecommended permanent disbarment. The Supreme Court with the findings and recommended sanctionand so ordered. The court cited similar cases in which permanent disbarment was imposed, Smith(2007), Moushey (2004), Weaver (2004), Fodal (2003).Rules Violated: Prof.Cond.R. 8.1(b); DR 6-101(A)(3), 7-101(A)(2)Aggravation: (a), (b), (c), (e)Mitigation: NONEPrior Discipline: YES (x2) Procedure/ Process Issues: NO Criminal Conduct: NOPublic Official: NO Sanction: Disbarment