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

Saunders, Greene Cty. Bar Assn. v.127 Ohio St.3d 241, 2010-Ohio-5708. Decided 11/30/2010.Case Summaries- 293Respondent failed to act with diligence, failed to keep his clients reasonably informed about theirlegal matters and did not cooperate in the disciplinary process. In November 2009, respondent wassuspended from the practice of law for failure to register and pay the registration fees. In January 2010,he received an interim-felony suspension in In re Saunders, 124 Ohio St.3d 1435, 2010-Ohio-187.Relator charged respondent in a four- count complaint, which went unanswered. A master commissionergranted relator‘s motion for default and made findings, conclusions, and a recommendation which theBoard adopted. In Count One, respondent was hired by a husband and wife to assist with estate-planningmatters. He prepared the necessary documents, but kept them in his possession, even after the coupleand later the couple‘s son requested in 2008 that the documents be forwarded to another attorney.Because the documents were never provided, the clients had to have new documents prepared. The boardfound violations of Prof.Cond.R. 1.4(a)(3), 1.4(a)(4), and 8.1(b). In Count Two, in 2009 a client retainedrespondent and paid $1,500 for representation in a divorce. The client tried to contact respondent over50 times, but respondent never responded, did not provide copies of any documents filed, and failed toattend court proceedings, including the final divorce hearing. The client‘s lacked funds to hire anotherattorney and had to represent himself. The board found violations of Prof.Cond.R. 1.3, 1.4(a)(3), and8.1(b). In Count Three, in 2007, a woman who was attorney for her deceased father‘s estate hiredrespondent to prepare the 2006 income tax returns for the estate. Respondent did not return thewoman‘s calls, even when she tried to contact him at the municipal court where he worked as anassistant prosecuting attorney. When she finally did get in touch with him, he said that he had requestedan extension of time to file and that she would not have to pay any late fees; but the client avers thesefacts are untrue. The client retained an accountant to prepare the tax returns and another attorney tofinalize the estate. The board found violations of Prof.Cond.R. 1.4(a)(2), 1.4(a)(3), 1.4(a)(4), and8.1(b). As to Count IV, the board dismissed all but one charge because the relator submitted anaffidavit from the grievant‘s attorney, who did not have personal knowledge of the facts, rather than fromthe grievant. The board found respondent violated Prof.Cond.R. 8.1(b) by failing to respond to theinvestigation of the grievance. In aggravation, there were prior disciplinary offenses, dishonest orselfish motive, a pattern of misconduct involving multiple offenses, harm to vulnerable clients, and failureto cooperate in the disciplinary process. BCGD Proc.Reg. 10(B)(1)(a), (b), (c), (d), (e), and (h). Therewere no mitigating factors. The court, citing Hoff (2010) and Mathewson (2007), noted that neglect andfailure to cooperate generally warrant an indefinite suspension. The court adopted the findings of fact,conclusions of law and recommended sanction and so ordered an indefinite suspension.Rules Violated: Prof.Cond.R. 1.3, 1.4(a)(2), 1.4(a)(3), 1.4(a)(4), 8.1(b)Aggravation: (a), (b), (c), (d), (e), (h)Mitigation: NONEPrior Discipline: YES Procedure/ Process Issues: YES Criminal Conduct: YESPublic Official: YES Sanction: Indefinite Suspension