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

Randall, Dayton Bar Assn. v.118 Ohio St.3d 408, 2008-Ohio-2709. Decided 6/12/2008.Case Summaries- 263Upon relator‘s motion for default, the matter was referred to a master commissioner. Between November2000 and February 2004, respondent filed eight social security appeals in a federal district court, but failedto prosecute the cases. In seven of the cases, the cases were dismissed without prejudice for want ofprosecution after respondent failed to respondent to show-cause orders. The eighth case was dismissedwhen respondent failed to comply with the federal magistrate‘s order to file a ―Statement of Errors‖by a certain date. Between April 2003 and March 2004, respondent neglected the cases of four otherclients in the federal district court. Respondent showed the same neglect of legal matters and disregardof court orders and procedures as in the cases above. Each case was dismissed without prejudice forwant of prosecution. Respondent failed to respond to relator‘s inquiries. Board adopted mastercommissioner‘s findings of violations of DR 1-102(A)(5), 1-102(A)(6), 7-106(B)(7), Gov.Bar R. V(4)(g).Board found that there was insufficient evidence to support the charged violation of DR 6-101(A)(3). In aggravation, respondent is under suspension for failing to comply with attorney-registrationrequirements, engaged in a pattern of misconduct, and did not cooperate. BCGD Proc.Reg. 10(B)(1)(c)and (e). Board adopted the master commissioner‘s recommended sanction of indefinite suspension. TheSupreme Court of Ohio adopted the findings of violations of DR 1-102(A)(5), 1-102(A)(6), 7-106(B)(7), and Gov.Bar R. V(4)(G), but also found, contrary to the board, that respondent violated DR 6-101(A)(3). The court cited Reid (1999) paragraph 1 of the Syllabus (this court is not bound by theboard‘s findings of fact or conclusions of law). The court agreed with the recommended sanction and soordered an indefinite suspension. Two justices dissenting for a permanent disbarment.Rules Violated: DR 1-102(A)(5), 1-102(A)(6), 7-106(B)(7); Gov.Bar R. V(4)(G)Aggravation: (a), (c), (e)Mitigation: NONEPrior Discipline: YES Procedure/ Process Issues: YES Criminal Conduct: NOPublic Official: NO Sanction: Indefinite Suspension